Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

What would it take for Russia to be #1?


  • Please log in to reply
7545 replies to this topic

#961 GIJOE

GIJOE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 03 September 2003 - 09:01 PM

The time has come to make a decision
take your time and use precision
our enemies want to cause division
but this is only cause they wishin

that the good life that so many lead
is the reason they want us to bleed
and if we bleed like we did before
it s over for them they shall be no more
cause the man with the jam will be at their door
and they shall hear the lion roar
he does this just before he eats
and towel heads he takes as sweets
so now you know what the future will bring
unless harmony is the song you sing
and truth is words that go with the song
and truth is the key to make us strong.


G I Joe
  • 0

#962 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 12:55 AM

> > It staggers belief that anyone could be as dumb as you and Dubya.
>
> I can see it now. A CO2 tax or restrictions on vehicle emisions is
> approved, than expanded to industry under fairness doctrine and equal
> non-discrimination clauses, then to livestock (see nearby post from New
> Zealand Kyoto police) and, of course, to humans which will require a
> global permit or tax to procreate or have sex. No one's cornered the
> market on dumbness.

I can see your solution too: In a not-so-distant future you would be
selling bottled oxygen and water when you finish with the natural
resources, and then sell us a space in the Heaven where you are
sending us because of pollution and war. Ah, hallelujah!!!

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#963 GIJOE

GIJOE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 01:22 AM

Are you talkin to me?

G I Joe
  • 0

#964 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 01:24 AM

Oh, my goodness, it's a jungle out there...;)

"Of course, it is hardly comforting to be told that we live in a jungle and must take appropriate precautions."

The law of the jungle
By Stephen Blank

When the Bush administration announced last year that it would wage preemptive war against not only terrorists but also against members of the "axis of evil" or, by implication, any state aspiring to deploy weapons of mass destruction, it ignited a firestorm of criticism and complaint. Since then much ink has been spilled decrying America
  • 0

#965 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 01:31 AM

<Are you talkin to me?>

No, I was reminding someone the business opportunities there are in polluting, just like there are in war, the contractors in Iraq being a good example...;)

"Wars, conflict, its all business. One murder makes a villain. Millions a hero. Numbers sanctify."
-Charlie Chaplin

more...

http://engforum.prav...&threadid=26709
  • 0

#966 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 03:19 AM

Hey guys, this hungry lion got no limits. How can we have a better world when we create junk food addicts?:mad:

Perhaps we can put forth some other ideas that can make this world a better and safer place, can't we?

Isn't this Child Abuse?

Schools Peddling Junk Food to Kids
By David Nakamura

Through contracts with soft drink companies and other vendors, some
schools are raising as much as $100,000 a year, money that pays for such
things as computer rewiring, teacher training and Black History Month
activities.
Read the fine print of those contracts, though, and the costs start to
sink in: One school in Prince George's County guaranteed sales of 4,500
cases of soda a year -- or about 50 sodas a student.
Some contracts state that schools could lose money if they turn off the
machines at lunchtime, as required by state and federal law.
The biggest cost, some parents and health advocates say, is the health
risk to students in a system that gives schools a financial interest in
selling them more snacks.

'survey' taking place at...

http://engforum.prav...&threadid=32529
  • 0

#967 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 03:36 AM

It appears to me tht the two party system is as one once put it,
two fighters trained by the same sponsor, in the ring and the out come is the same, the same winner while the contestants take the battering. A mini-version of the Hegelian dynamic. Like two paddles on the ends of one orr, the boat arrives at the same place as intended inspite of the energy spent on the opposing
sides ( conservative v socialist) And with out the big donated funds they would disappear. They go where the money goes.
What's new.

THanks Vladzo for your interest and encouragement.

Woj, its still a history class to me. Your point for Donq only applies to him. I liked your point about Swizld, quite a challenge really, thanks for your perspectives.
Churches: a lot of imperialism lies behind the Organisation. There is a difference between an organism and an organisation (DOng should consider this factor in the contrast between the coop and other forms of enterprise, an organisation can easily be a Lion but a lot harder for an organism, it has to be taken over first,
like democracy by funded two party jackups) One Church claims the divine right over all the others which the others do not in turn. Interestingly I read recently that the Russian Orth. Church believe they have a providential roll in redeeming the Western church. Where does one find imperialism and leaders being lifted up like Kings in the New Testament?

Some heavy songs out there DonQ. One wouldn't think that they live on the same planet as the average journalist.

I can't go with Stephen Blank. In summary he is saying, to me,
forget the defence agreements and UN the village needs a good bully to protect the village so everyone run in behind him. He
misses a number of sobering points, to many to cover them all,
but for a few:
he made a scattered view of terrorism but did everyone observe that once the war on terrorism was declared by Bush Jerry Adams
disappeared of the world stage, because the U.S. is the major sourse of IRA funds and they have always known it and done nothing about it. The other fact that Britain has always known it as well and not objected and now they are in Iraq together
because of its link to terrorism excuse.
The greater problem with the U.N. security Council is that the U.S. vetos everythging that is not in its interest or Israels. How many
resolutions have been passed against Israel yet no embargo.
He rubbished the embargo against Iraq. The Iraqi income from oil sales was held under UN authority in New York by U.S. and only approved purchases were allowed from that account, totally out of the hands of Iraq. Over half a million Iraqi children have died because of that embargo, even when Albright (SEc of State) was challeneged with it she didn't deny it and said it was worth it. For what? They can't cover their lies today.
The bombing in Kosovo was also proved to be based on lies, just like Blairs intelligence report, as well.
The quote from the Swed Ch of Staff - if you don't take care for your security no one else will care- and Blank suggested this applies to the big boys, well 15 countries warned the U.S. about the poss. of Sept 11!
Sorry Donq Blank draws too many blanks for me.
  • 0

#968 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 04:04 AM

<The time has come to make a decision
take your time and use precision
our enemies want to cause division
but this is only cause they wishin

that the good life that so many lead
is the reason they want us to bleed
and if we bleed like we did before
it s over for them they shall be no more
cause the man with the jam will be at their door
and they shall hear the lion roar
he does this just before he eats
and towel heads he takes as sweets
so now you know what the future will bring
unless harmony is the song you sing
and truth is words that go with the song
and truth is the key to make us strong.>

The enemy is within us

(drumbeats)

The enemy is within us

(more drumbeats)

Fix the Jungle, Fix the World

No more Jungle!

No more Jungle!

No more Jungle!

(even more drumbeats)

How was it for my first rap?;)
  • 0

#969 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 04:36 AM

<There is a difference between an organism and an organisation (DOng should consider this factor in the contrast between the coop and other forms of enterprise, an organisation can easily be a Lion but a lot harder for an organism, it has to be taken over first,
like democracy by funded two party jackups)>

I know. The cooperative would only have only have a maximum size not to become a lion (I read somewhere it's in the 1000-2000 member range). But actually both the organization (say the government) and the organism (the cooperative) can have a symbiotic relationship.

symbiosis: NOUN: 1. Biology A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.

I'll explain, neither one can grow too strong for it will result in the strenghtening of the other. Since the Jungle--as it is now--is *unsustainable*, everybody would be a winner... A Ministry of Economy and Cooperatives--which already exists in Belize--would ensure such a balance.

Cooperative Department: The mission of the Cooperatives and Credit Union Department is to enable the common person to generate income and self improvement through organized group enterprises based on cooperative philosophy and principles for sustainable development.

-promoting, educating and training groups seeking registration.
-registering of cooperatives and credit unions.
-regulating and supervising cooperatives and credit unions including drawing up by-laws for societies, inspecting of records, auditing of accounts, and settlement of disputes submitted for arbitration and cancellation and liquidation of societies.
-promoting, supporting and assisting the development, management and monitoring of economic enterprises to ensure sustainable development.

Whether they are working properly or not I don't know but we can certainly bring experts from other countries like Denmark, where the coops have been proven to work for over 100 years. I even have the webpage for the experts...;)

full text...

http://www.belize.go...a/welcome.shtml
  • 0

#970 GIJOE

GIJOE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 04:54 AM

Thank you. Charlie Chaplin was a superbly talented man, his politics were not very popular with mainstream America. His statement that killing millions makes a hero is not entirely true.
Did killing millions make Hitler or Stalin heroes, no it made them both villains for eternity. So as for Charlie C May God rest his soul. He made me laugh. and sing his songs.. he was a great songwriter if you did not know.
  • 0

#971 GIJOE

GIJOE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 04:58 AM

RE your first rap, keep on keepin on , speak your soul this is the only thing that penetrates the deaf sometimes. you can rap..
  • 0

#972 cpwill

cpwill

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 05:09 AM

<<But when Washington announced that it would preempt states seeking to gain weapons of mass destruction, this proclamation seemed to have crossed the line to trigger-happy unilateralism.>>

i've always noticed that when that sumbich is about to pick up a weapon it's a good idea to kick him hard, pop him over the head, and leave him lying on the floor before he get's a chance.
fair fights are for idiots; give me an advantage any day of the week.
  • 0

#973 GIJOE

GIJOE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 05:13 AM

Originally posted by cpwill
<<But when Washington announced that it would preempt states seeking to gain weapons of mass destruction, this proclamation seemed to have crossed the line to trigger-happy unilateralism.>>

i've always noticed that when that sumbich is about to pick up a weapon it's a good idea to kick him hard, pop him over the head, and leave him lying on the floor before he get's a chance.
fair fights are for idiots; give me an advantage any day of the week.



APPLIES TO ALL FIGHTS!!!!!!!!
  • 0

#974 cpwill

cpwill

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 05:15 AM

it's all so simple once you see,
what i gotta do to protect me
when that ashole gets a gun
i better shoot first or i better run
but your only a target when he sees your back
and not only that but you can;t shoot back
so i guess the best
is just to attack.
cause once you been bloodied and on the floor
you decide you don't want to be bloodied no more.
if you even think about wmd
i'll put your a$$ under gra$$
for threatnin me.
that's the state of the world and no it ain't nice
if you don't like take the magic rug to paradise.
have fun with your virgins i don't give a sh!t
hel, i'll even arrange the trip.
  • 0

#975 GIJOE

GIJOE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 05:33 AM

General Stormin Norman Schwartzkopf,

SAID IT AND ITS MY JOB TO GET AS MANY OF THE ENEMY TO HEAVEN AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE..
  • 0

#976 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 01:49 PM

Donquijote ; ////
  • 0

#977 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 05:23 PM

Donquijote;
(Michael de Montaigne).
//
  • 0

#978 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 05:53 PM

<Thank you. Charlie Chaplin was a superbly talented man, his politics were not very popular with mainstream America. His statement that killing millions makes a hero is not entirely true.
Did killing millions make Hitler or Stalin heroes, no it made them both villains for eternity. So as for Charlie C May God rest his soul. He made me laugh. and sing his songs.. he was a great songwriter if you did not know. >

Poor Charlie, he didn't know what he was up against...:confused:

It was his next picture, "The Great Dictator" (1940), that got Chaplin into the political hot water that ultimately led to his being barred from the United States. While he was on a visit to England in 1952, his reentry permit would be revoked as retribution for his so-called communist sympathies and dubious moral character. It was an ironic twist that Chaplin himself had forecast in a famous gag sequence in "Modern Times."

Wandering down the street, minding his own business, a naive but helpful Charlie sees a red danger flag fall from the end of a passing truck and picks it up. While running along and waving that red flag in an innocent attempt to catch the driver's eye, the Little Tramp is entirely unaware, as he rounds a street corner, that he has just been joined from the rear by an angry mob of striking demonstrators. Rallying behind his unfurled banner, they begin chanting the Communist "Internationale" until they are dispersed by the cops, who bop Charlie the Red over the head and throw him in jail.

Just four years later it would be in a remarkably similar situation involving rapidly changing political contexts that Chaplin the film maker earned the enmity of isolationist America's political establishment for "The Great Dictator." Abandoning traditional pantomime technique and his classic tramp character in order to play two talking parts -- Adolph Hitler and a little Jewish barber -- Chaplin spoke for the first time on film.

His closing speech, an artistically flawed but emotionally eloquent plea for concerted international intervention against Hitler's persecution of the Jews, instantly earned Chaplin a subpoena to appear before a hastily formed, isolationist, anti-war Senate subcommittee on war propaganda in September of 1941.

And Chaplin's popular, financially successful film -- which helped shape American public opinion in favor of the war -- also helped earn him (in the files of the FBI), the quaint political epithet of "premature anti-fascist." (In the terminology of the day, it was a political euphemism for someone with strong left-wing leanings who was not officially a member of the Communist Party.)

As Talleyrand remarked, "treason is a matter of dates." Chaplin's passionately anti-Nazi views, about which he was outspoken from the late 1930s to war's end, would never change. But our relationship to Russia and Germany would. During the years of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, America's official position was isolationist, and Chaplin's speech in "The Great Dictator" was seen as inciting to war. By the time the United States was involved in World War II, new alliances were forming. Politics during this period made strange bedfellows. The American Communist Party and the right-wing America First Committee were unified in their adamant opposition to this country entering the war against Germany. And it was precisely during this period that Chaplin filmed and premiered "The Great Dictator," which openly urged Americans to wage war against the Nazis regardless of whether that war harmed or benefited the Soviet Union.

When the Soviet Union and America later became allies in a life-and-death struggle against the Axis powers, Chaplin continued voicing his vehement anti-Nazi attitudes. But now, he also championed Soviet interests as identical with our own. Throughout 1942, he campaigned vigorously on behalf of Russian War Relief and a Second Front.

Because of Chaplin's worldwide stature as an artist and the ability of a Chaplin satire to tickle funny bones on such a mass scale, those who disagreed with his politics viewed him as a formidable adversary. But if his ability to influence were to be effectively neutralized, Chaplin's popular image had to be taken down several notches.

The backlash against Chaplin began gathering momentum in late 1942. Westbrook Pegler, a conservative journalist whose syndicated column ran in hundreds of newspapers (including The Times), kicked off the campaign with two scathing diatribes. Equating Chaplin's activities in support of our military alliance with the Soviets as pro-Communist and therefore anti-American, he recommended his deportation. And with even more vehemence, Pegler also made the suggestion that the actor's three previous divorces were clear proof of his unpatriotic contempt "for the standard American relationship of marriage, family and home."

The last charge proved to be the one that stuck most easily. The average American newspaper reader was in no mood for any political polemics which could weaken the war effort. But as a younger man, Chaplin had a reputation as a ladies' man. And a juicy sex scandal involving a famous movie star made good reading.

In June of 1943, an unmarried woman with whom Chaplin had been intimate filed a paternity suit, claiming he was the father of her unborn child. Independently administered blood tests would conclusively prove that he was not the child's father. But before those results could ever be made known, Chaplin was well on his way to becoming publicly branded a "moral leper."

Daily front-page coverage of a sensational trial on lurid charges of white slavery, unflattering photos of him being fingerprinted like a common criminal and a running series of hostile articles by politically conservative Hollywood columnists (led by Hedda Hopper) all contributed to the precipitous decline in Chaplin's public image, as did behind-the-scenes activities of the FBI. Careful analysis of that agency's security files on Chaplin suggests he was frivolously charged with the antiquated Mann Act in spite of abundant evidence of his innocence (which he eventually proved); it also suggests that the FBI supplied gossip columnists with information from those files and that the bureau even suppressed (and physically hid) indications of judicial impropriety that, if known, would have forced the federal judge hearing the case to disqualify himself on ethical grounds.

Because of newspaper coverage of a protracted series of paternity hearings and trials that did not end until a month after Germany's surrender, Chaplin's political influence was effectively curtailed. But he fervently remained committed to an idealistic, postwar crusade against all forms of domestic political repression. Like many American liberals in those days, he was quicker to identify and protest the encroachments on civil liberties in the United States than he was prepared to immediately recognize and condemn the excesses of Stalinism.

With his image tarnished as a result of the negative publicity campaign, the political strategy for containing Chaplin became the reverse of what it earlier had been. Keeping Chaplin off the witness stand was now the single most effective way to further damage his reputation and to impugn his loyalties. He was, in effect, labeled a communist in a campaign of rumors and innuendoes. For as the House Un-American Activities Committee and FBI well knew (and the files of the latter indicate), he never had been a member of the Communist Party. Had he been allowed to testify under oath, he could have set the record straight. (Subpoenaed by HUAC in 1947, his hearing was postponed three times and finally canceled.)

Chaplin fought back with the pugnacious tenacity of the true childhood invulnerable. He obliged his attackers by responding to their inflammatory rhetoric with passionate indignation. Goaded into defending himself, he rapidly became a convenient symbol of dangerous leftist leanings.

He was determined -- no matter what the personal cost -- not to be intimidated. That characteristic sign of the true childhood invulnerable -- a deep and abiding faith in his ability to overcome any and all obstacles -- had always been the personal credo by which he lived:

Even when I was in the orphanage, when I was roaming the streets trying to find enough to eat to keep alive, even then I thought of myself as the greatest actor in the world. I had to feel that exuberance that comes from utter confidence in yourself. Without that you go down in defeat.

That same survival characteristic had endeared his Little Tramp to moviegoers around the world for over 40 years. It was natural that the invulnerable child in Charlie would assume that the same psychological defense mechanism would serve him equally well in his struggles with HUAC and the FBI.

"Proceed with the butchery . . . fire ahead at this old gray head," were his opening words to the reporters who gathered at the press conference after the opening of "Monsieur Verdoux" in 1947. Distinctly disinterested in discussing his film, they were there to report on his politics. They bombarded him with questions about his patriotism. The Cold War was heating up. His good-natured attempt to humorously deflect their hostility by describing himself as a "peace monger" did not go over.

Afterward, when conservative political pressure groups demonstrated their ability to induce Americans to boycott his film as an act of patriotism, Chaplin began to fully appreciate the extent to which he had underestimated his opponents.

source...

http://www.american....ts/soc/run.html
  • 0

#979 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 06:10 PM

<i've always noticed that when that sumbich is about to pick up a weapon it's a good idea to kick him hard, pop him over the head, and leave him lying on the floor before he get's a chance.
fair fights are for idiots; give me an advantage any day of the week.>

There lies the flaw: The other guy may see your attack coming and strike you first. It's called the Law of the Jungle...:confused:

Bush Doctrine: Hegemony Claim or Jungle Law

"If, on the other hand, all states possess the same
right, the Bush doctrine opens the war to the return of the jungle,
where the powerful have the capacity to impose their will."

Professor of politics at La Probe University Robert Anne criticized
Monday the Bush Doctrine as hegemony claims or jungle law.

The professor published on The Sydney Morning Herald an article titled
"Kill first, ask questions later," in which he said the new idea of
the pre-emptive strike in reality is a strategy not of pre-emptive
strike but of preventive war because the Bush doctrine proposes
military action against "rogue states" when no threat to the United
States is imminent.

"For a preventive war to be launched, a state needs only imagine
itself to be under threat. With such an idea, the line between
self-defense and aggression becomes hopelessly blurred," he said.

The professor analyzed, "The danger of this conflation of pre-emptive
strike and preventive war is aggravated precisely by the fact that the
Bush doctrine makes it clear that the United States reserves to itself
the right to strike unilaterally, without mandate from the established
processes of the United Nations. Under the new doctrine, then, the
United States may not only go to war on the basis of an imagined
threat. It also arrogates to itself the right to decide alone when
such a threat exists."

"At the center of the doctrine, a huge conceptual hole appears.Does
the United States, as the world hegemony, alone possess the sovereign
right to act unilaterally against a supposed threat to its security by
prosecuting a preventive war, or does an identical right exist for
other states?" he asked and concluded "If the right does not exist for
others, the Bush doctrine amounts to an almost formal claim to US
world hegemony. If, on the other hand, all states possess the same
right, the Bush doctrine opens the war to the return of the jungle,
where the powerful have the capacity to impose their will."

http://webspawner.co...rs/donquijote23
  • 0

#980 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 04 September 2003 - 06:17 PM

< donquijote; give up your lambs. Look for more successful solution.

In the eyes of the people, the general who wins a battle has made no mistake (Voltare) >

That's the thing, you don't know whether the battle has been successful until it's over.

The proles are the only hope!

No Lion No Problem!

PS: What's your solution?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru