3,094 Forum Posts by "Empanado"
At 1/18/04 02:36 AM, Rector wrote:At 1/18/04 12:10 AM, diazepim wrote:Doesn't that make sense?
No. America does not use the same cowardly tactics that the likes of Palestine and Iraq because they aren't cowards.
First, maybe you'd want to know what is an average Palestinian/ Iraqi going thru at these days before calling them cowards. Oh, lemme guess, you don't want to know. That's racism, did you know?
Second, i'm fed up with the stupidity of some bullsh as "americans aren't cowards" or "X country, the land of braves". Thats absolutely stupid. No matter how much training a soldier can get, if he's a coward in the inside, that will be revealed in the battlefield. Oh, and you say, "why would they enlist yourself in the army if you're a coward in first place?" Well, maybe it's because you don't REALIZE you're a coward yet. It's like when you start posting on the BBS thinking you're so smart and then suddenly you realize you're very, very stupid. Unlike many of you may think, you don't LEARN to be brave, you're BORN with that, as you're born with so many other things. Believe me, there's a LOT of cowards in the U.S. army. And in the U.K. army, and the French army, and the Spanish army, and the Chilean army, and the Ugandian army, and so go on...
Should we teach about the proper use on contraception?
(condoms and the pill etc.)
Of course, unless you're in a american christian freak school. The christian viewpoint of sex is prolly the suckiest part of the whole christianity, isn't it? Anticonceptives are the best way of preventing STDs, after abstinence and healthy sex-life, of course. Altough, using condom shouldn't be taught as an imposition, because that would lead to an "Look at me, i'm cool 'cause i don't use a condom!" scenario.
Should we teach abortion at all? (Even in an unbiadsed manner)
Personally i'm anti-abortion unless in cases of incest/violation or other specific cirscumptances, but i'm pretty sure it should be teached. Specially the risks and consequences.
Should we teach about different ways of having sex? (Oral/Anal etc.)
Mmmm...that's a tough one... I'd say yes, but not too...intensive, if you get what i mean.
When should we start teaching children about it?
Another toff one... let's see...if it's too early they won't pay much attention (keep in mind the hormons! for god's sake the hormons!) unless you do it goddam well, if it's too late well...it'll be too late, y'know. After all it's not that difficult: It should be taught a bit earlier than when the kids hit puberty. 10 to 12 seems good to me.(girls hittin' puberty at 9?! What kind of freak nation is the US?! GOD!)
So far my 3rd world school hasn't done that bad, they've taught about the proper use of a condom, psychological characters related to sex stuff, STDs, abstinence and some other things. Actually the part of how to put a condom was the only time that i learned anything new, y'know (i was 11-12 at the time i think). It's taught quite on the proper age, so i guess it's quite good.
Oh well let's see...
first of all, it fits more if you talk about "latin inmigrants" rather than "hispanic inmigrants". Altough hispanic is the ethnical definition for it, that includes both Spain and Latin America. And i sincerely doubt that there are a lot of spanish inmigrants in the US. They already have a goddamn good country right where they are."Latin" refers only to Latin American people, which i think that is the people you're actually talking about. Well, personally i'm 1/16 irish, 1/8 syrian and 13/16 chilean or so, so i pretty much belong to the "latin" definition, altho i don't quite look like one (and that's a bitch). Now, gettin' to the point here, i'd say that you should give a hand to MsBobble here. I mean, there's something that she's thinking and she doesn't want to say 'cause it would sound too racist (pehaps because it is). Well lemme say it for you: "I ONLY WANT WHITE PEOPLE IN MY COUNTRY". That's it. I can understand that to a certain point, i mean, i'd only like mestizoes to live in my country and no gringos at all, but the difference is that we actually HAVE our 'race' on a 80% ratio in most countries (by mestizo i mean the ethnical mixture of two or more races, specially spanish and native races). That's mainly because, who the hell would want to come here anyway? Ok, MsBobble is a racist, but she has a point: it's not like all the inmigrants go to the US and then the whole country is speaking spanish, you have a culture and you must keep it, or at least make sure that it doesnt suffer any violent changes, because after all, cultures change. BUT (and that's one important but) you must realize that not ALL inmigrants go to the US without speaking english, and not ALL inmigrants are illegal, in fact most of them inmigrate honestly and with the intention of becoming a part of your american society. And, if you still are an anti-inmigrant freak, you should know that ethnical mixture is a very efficient way of assimilating a race. By that i mean, if you hate latin inmigrants, go have sex with an hispanic! Have kids with him, and make them have sex with white people and to have kids with them. Then you make your grandchildren to have sex with white people again. If there's not enough "pure" whites at those times, bring some from Sweden or Norway or so. They have plenty of them there and they won't miss some. Tell all your white friends to do the same and in 3 or 4 generations there will be barely any reminiscence of the latin race. That's a much more efficient system than kicking them out. You can export it to Latin America if you want to wipe out the latin race from Earth forever. See? That crazy "make love, not war" thingy can actually work!
At 1/15/04 11:30 PM, Dagodevas wrote: You're thinking of the FOX network, we're talking about Fox News.
Where's the difference? As far as i know both of them broadcast ficticious and quite funny things most of the time.
Bumcheek's right on that one. What's the point of more spacial stuff? Now they're heading for Mars. Why? Are they going to say that Osama may be hiding there or what? In my opinion it's just too much cash to spend on that. Specially if they're not fully recovered of the economical recession. It's just a stupid way of spending money if you ask me. (And yeh, we chileans have been on something like that. We spent a lot of cash on a satellite that didn't even launch for god's sake)
At 1/15/04 12:30 PM, Maragriz wrote: I've been saying this again and again. Turn the entire middle east into a somking crater with bombs, and there you go, no more fighting,because everyone would be dead, then we invade and enslave France, Invade and plillage all beer, and women (hey trust me, they are hot!) of germany. And finally take over Canada, and Mexico. My Name is Maragriz and I'm running For President of the United States.
Hey Maragriz, i think a guy named George just stole your idea. You better start chasing him y'know, a hint: He works in Washington but he spends most of his time in Texas.
At 1/15/04 07:06 AM, adrshepard wrote:
Yes, Israel is the reason for the terrorist attacks, but pulling out would be fulfilling their cause. Plus, I think that if some Arab nations realized that Israel no longer had US weapons, they would take the opportunity to regain some of their land, and I think there would be another nasty war.
You may be right on that one, but pulling out the support may be at least used as a bluff to put some pressure there in order to achieve some peace, y'know. I think there's an specific thread for this topic so i'll shut up.
And as far as the US economy goes, it's getting better. Like many people say, right now we're in a stage of recovery. It's all about recovery and recession in a continual loop.
Recession...Recovery...bleh. Oh well i guess the only way to know how this stuff will turn out is to wait for it.
At 1/14/04 09:39 PM, Kutatoxi wrote:At 1/14/04 12:03 AM, Empanado wrote:You're from Chili... and you don't know who he's talking about? He's referring to Agusto Pinochet, a terrible dictator (much like Saddam) who is responsible for countless cases (several thousands) of murder, torture and dissapearences! I can't believe you didn't learn this in school... He was appointed by the American gouverment in order to stop the so-called "evil" communist-socialist party which was currently rising in Chili. It was the exact same case for Saddam except instead it was Iran they were trying to stop; and look how that ended up!? In fact, if I can name ONE good thing Bush had done: he hasn't put anything psycho dictators in power (although that could quickly change.)
Eh, when i said that i didn't understand, i meant that i probably translated his post wrong for myself and it didn't make any sense to me. Of course i know who is Pinochet.
Are you on drugs!? You're country is by far the most wealthy in South America. Hell, you're country is less dependant of the US economy then mine! Chili is 2nd supplier of ocean ressources worldwide, the #1 supplier of copper in the world, the 4th (I think)supplier of wine, and a hell of a lot more! You don't owe anything to the US. If anything, they owe you.
But still, the economy of Chile depends a lot of the US. If the dollar devaluates, the exports lose some value, therefore the companies lose money and that leads to economical crisis and unemployment. Altho, we're starting to look forward into the Asian market rather than the american one. Besides, most of the rest of Latin America depends from the US, and if they lose money, we also do, as they're a big support for us both in economical and political ways. And, even if we're the wealthiest country in South America, that still doesn't make up for a "big" country, does it?
So, are you saying you hate or don't hate the US?
If you mean the administration, i pretty much hate it. If you mean the country itself, nor do i hate or like it.
when the discussion in a forum changes from Ariel Sharon (yup, he's a bitch) to the ethnical group of a person and his grammatical context of communication, then there's sum weird shit goin' on, y'all. (ok, i suck at it, i admit it)
Ok, then you'd vote for Bush mostly because you think the other candidates would be worse. (Personally i think that pulling out the support to Israel would be rather a good thing than a bad thing, that's one of the most important reasons for the terrorist attacks, y'know. Oh well maybe it's just some crazy ideas of mine)
But don't you think that the internal affairs are the ones that should really matter on this? I mean, all in all, the facts tell that the US are having a crisis, i.e. unemployment, the dollar has devaluated, etc. In my personal opinion, i'd vote for the candidate that cares more about the country itself than external affairs. I've never lived on a "big" country tho, so i guess that you people could think different than us.
Ok, so i asked for a list and there it is. Now people will be able to check out both sides of the thing and bring out their own conclusion. Thanks. One last question, shepard. Just to close this topic. In your own words, would you vote for the reelection of George W. Bush and why?
At 1/13/04 04:06 PM, adrshepard wrote:
What I don't understand is why there is so much anti-american sentiment in Latin America about the Iraq war.
Not just about Iraq, shepard. that's how we are. Or most of us. Lemm tell ya something so you could understand us a bit more.
Let's see...about 120 years ago, as a result of the Pacific war, Chile invaded, or gained, or achieved or whatever you want to call it, both Peruvian and Bolivian territories. Bolivia lost his access to the Ocean as a result to that. Now, Bolivians and Peruvians hate us. And i mean HATE us. Y'know that the french and the brits dislike each other? Well this is like 10 times that. Why? because of that XIX century war. And NOW, Bolivia wants his access to the Ocean back (I actually agree with them), and our president says no (He's actually a good president, but at this affair he's a bitch). And now the whole latin america is on Bolivia's side, specially Hugo Chavez, from Venezuela, who needs to distract his people from the current crisis. Also Kirshner from Argentina and 'Lula' Da Silva from Brazil, but they're more moderate on their position.
What i'm talking about is, that is common on little, poor countries to develop grudges against each other or towards another country. My theory is, that the popular Mexican anti-americanism after that war, spreaded to the whole latin america on few years, and it developed as a brand of the latin american culture. They will dislike you now, and tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, and when you eat your pancakes. It's a matter of education, pal.
Well i don't really care much about the Moore thing, in fact he didn't change too much my view of the States, but, still, i think that all that stuff were details in the end, i mean, the true point of all this (the guns, the columbine thing and that) its still true or is it? And those facts, who cares? For me, i didn't care about those. And if they are changed, i bet the original ones aren't too good either or are they? Not that i care too much about it. But i still don't understand why some of you americans need to have a gun. Or is that you desperately need to feel safer or is that you need to compensate something, if you get what i mean. I think it's the first one, tough.
At 1/13/04 11:13 PM, swallowing_shit wrote:
:OR WHAT IF HE LIED? Politicians don't do that do they?
Thats a trick question, right?
At 1/13/04 04:13 PM, adrshepard wrote:At 1/12/04 12:22 PM, Empanado wrote:
Its difficult to list all the good things Bush does because compared to all the controversial things he has done they are not worth reporting in the media. One hardly hears about all the good things.
Well, i tought that an important part of the media was pro-bush. If THEY don't inform any good thing that Bush does (remember, besides foreign policy) that means that maybe finally he doesn't do anything good at all. ALTOUGH, i'm pretty sure they DO report some stuff. I mean come on. THREE YEARS since he became president. Seven good things aren't much asking.
Besides, you live in Chile. What do you care? Could it be that by making such a big deal about a country you hate( the dictator thing) that you are actually confirming its great importance and strength?
I don't quite get what you're saying here. Anyway, First: I care because, as i said previously, i care about the future of my country. The US is a VERY important factor to the economical and political stabilities of many countries, specially little ones like mine. Second, i don't remember saying at any moment that the US weren't an important or strong country. (If i did, sorry, it was a lie) In fact, i do believe that they are the biggest nation in the world at these times, but, with an idiot ruling it, they will fall and they will take mostly everyone down with them. A moron in the white house is a threat to the whole world.
---
I may add that it looks like you people think that by saying that a country is "important" it means that i like it. Well it doesn't, y'know.
Oh and i haven't seen any lists yet.
PS: People! go to see bushin30seconds.org! Anti bush shorts! Besides, they're funny!(maybe i'm a bit late on this stuff, but still, go watch'em!)
Well some people notice and some don't. Maybe you're just more spammable than him. I've noticed it.
take a look at americaforsale.org please icewraith.
And H-Dawg gets a hug from the HugBear and gets shooted for hugging!
At 1/12/04 08:21 AM, cockjockey wrote:At 1/11/04 10:41 PM, Empanado wrote:YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT DO YOU KNOW HOW IS IT LIKE TO LIVE 17 YEARS OF TERROR UNDER THE ECT ECTJust two things;
1. You haven't lived for 17 years full stop, so it's hypocritical to open your statement with that.
You're right, i haven't, but it's simply part of the country i belong. It's not hypocritical at all, because the social aftermaths of the dictatorship are still present in the country. I actually care about the future (and past) of my nation (unfortunately i can't say the same about most people of my age) and i've asked people, gathered information and stuff, and that is what leads to a conclusion. Search on the internet, and you'll see that there's fairly a reason to get angry for it. I form part of a community, and that seems enough reason to me to piss off when someone puts it down to just another fact of the Cold War. A part of our identity as nation was lost in that dictatorship.
2. Your caps lock appears to be broken.
Well i'm not going to argue with this one, i was just pissed off at that moment. Good to see that there's still people that can recognize when they commit a mistake. I still disagree with you tho, shepard.
At 1/12/04 12:31 PM, Dagodevas wrote: Anti-Spam Bill stuff.
I admit it, THAT one is very good. We could use one of those. But it doesn't seem to me as a reason to vote for him yet, or is it?
No lists yet? Wow, that Bush must be the worst president ever.
C'mon people, let the pro-bush ists talk!
At 1/11/04 11:58 PM, swallowing_shit wrote: The only good thing that he has done, in my opinion, is that he's trying to allow illegal immigrants to work in the states.
Yes, i've heard of that. And i've also heard that there are several flaws on his plan, and that many inmigrants dislike this program for a lot of reasons. And arnold is going to be a bitch with the inmigrants anyway.
Although it is a relative good thing, i also agree that its only purpose is to get the Mexican vote.
Hey! I don't want to be just one-liner on the whole Bush matter, so all the people who is pro-Bush please help me here:
Can you name 7 or more good things Bush has done since he became president, BESIDES all the war on terrorism stuff? i mean, only internal things. (like, economy, education, health, etc)
Actually i'm anti-Bush, but i want to make sure that you're just not going to re-elect him because of the foreign policies stuff, that would be pathetic not just for him, but also for yourselves. I'm sure you're not so stupid guys, so i want to know your side of the story. Come on. 7 good things from dubya. Detailed description if possible.
(i ask all anti-bush ists not to post here until we get some lists of good things from Bush)
At 1/11/04 08:13 PM, adrshepard wrote: "US stages coup in Chile"
Nothing new here. It's about protecting economic interests. Every powerful country will put pressure on a leader or support a rebel in order to get a better deal.
YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT DO YOU KNOW HOW IS IT LIKE TO LIVE 17 YEARS OF TERROR UNDER THE RULE OF SOME SHIT INSTALLED BY A "POWERFUL COUNTRY" THAT WOULD HAVE IMPRISONED YOU IF YOU DISAGREED HIS THOUGHTS, KILL YOU IF YOU TRIED TO SCAPE OR TAKE YOU MILES AND MILES AWAY FROM YOUR FAMILY AND YOUR BELOVED ONES JUST BECAUSE YOU HAD DIFFERENT IDEAS? HAVE YOU EVER LIVED IN A DICTATORSHIP? HAVE YOU EVER SAW HOW YOUR FREEDOM IS TAKEN AWAY? OH LEMME GUESS: NO, YOU HAVEN'T. SO, WHAT YOU MEAN IS, THAT SO YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY GETS CHEAPER COPPER BY 17 YEARS, IT'S OK THAT 3000 CHILEANS WERE KILLED AND OVER 10000 MORE TORTURED OR "DISAPPEARED"? DO YOU HAVE ANY PEOPLE OF YOUR FAMILY WHO'VE DIED ON CIRSCUMPTANCES LIKE THESE? NO? WELL LEMME GIVE YA SOME NEWS: I DO, AND SO DOES ANOTHER TEN THOUSAND OF CHILEANS. SO WHY DON'T YOU SHOVE YOUR LITTLE PIECE OF FUCKING "PATRIOTISM" RIGHT ON YOUR ASS AND SHUT THE FUCK UP, BECAUSE YOURE NOT A PATRIOT, THE TRUE PATRIOTS ARE THE ONES THAT FUCKERS LIKE YOU CALL "ANTI AMERICANS" BECAUSE THEYRE AGAINST THE ATROCITIES THAT A MOTHERFUCKING ASSHOLE IS DOING "IN THE NAME OF PATRIOTISM AND NATIONAL SECURITY". YOUR COUNTRY HAS NEVER BURNT BOOKS (YET). PROBABLY NO ONE IN YOUR FAMILY HAS EVER HAD TO BURY ANY MUSIC, ART PIECE OR BOOK THEY HAD BECAUSE THEY'D GET PUNISHED FOR HAVING THEM. YOU'VE NEVER SEEN HOW THE VERY CORE OF YOUR NATION IS BOMBED BY FASCISTS THAT "BRING STABILITY TO THE COUNTRY TO SAVE IT FROM THE COMMUNIST MENACE". YOU DON'T KNOW HOW DOES IT FEEL. ALL THAT, DO YOU KNOW WHY? FOR YOUR ECONOMIC INTERESTS. YOU MAKE ME SICK.
Oh and i'd like to add that, altho i have a slight dislike for the U.S (for the US as A NATION , not towards each single american guy/girl out there) i actually kind of admire the american soldier that risks his life out there for a reason that he doesn't quite understand, but that he knows it means to protect and serve his country (i highly dislike the US army itself tho).
ummm thats all.
At 1/11/04 01:00 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: *George BUsh closes his laptop*
You missed the *after unsuscessfuly trying to understand how to get it started*
In short terms, i'm on the USA-should-not-police-the-world-for-their-own-interests side.
At 1/11/04 02:04 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: There was some battle here and there, but never anything that involved the entire world. So I wouldn't call it a world war.
Actually, it did involve as many (or even more) nations as the WW I and II. Maybe not at the same time, but man, on this one, i'd say that every single country became affected on one way or another. I mean, all the coups and "battles here and there" around the whole world, weren't independent at all, it was basically everything about the capitalists against the communists. I actually think that the Cold War wasn't exactly a war, it was a... a... a weird thing half way between a feud and a full-scale world war. That's it.
About this "War on terrorism", i don't think that it's a world war or that it will become one, but i'm pretty goddam sure that it's going to last a looooong time. Watch out boys, things may get nasty from now on.
Hey, at least it's not Dubya.
Can you give me some examples of "good dictators"?
If you say Augusto Pinochet i will kill you.
