I, personally, am a geography freak and am very good at naming all of the European countries by heart, although the Baltic countries can be difficult (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia). Asia is pretty easy too, except the island countries, and South America. Africa is quite difficult except the biggies - North African countries, South Africa, the Congo, Somalia, Ethiopia, etc.

Anyway, when I went to Europe it seemed like most Europeans knew much less about America than we Americans knew about Europe. An odd thing considering America has had a very dominant role in the entire world's history for the past 60 years. Perhaps it's denial.

At 11/3/09 03:51 PM, Rokas1337 wrote: you must feel like your a very big boy behind a computer screen, but first you have to grow some pubes before you reply to adult users

Ew I thought those were satanhairs.

At 11/3/09 01:27 AM, Cericon wrote: Well, you know what they say, we always hurt the one we love.

Also, you are a piece of shit and a waste of life.

26 years? That's insane. Here he would be behind bars for ever, or perhaps killed by government-condoned murder.

At 10/29/09 07:22 PM, Yorik wrote: ¿Que?

That's making fraud out of martyr.

At 10/28/09 03:47 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I want fox news kicked out because i want conservatives to be angry enough to take EFFECTIVE NON POLITICAL action. The kind of action that actually CHANGES things.

That's a very frightening idea though. It seems that a large part of the people who watch Fox News are the type of people who believe that Obama is a Muslim terrorist and is trying to destroy the country. If he finally shut down their one outlet, they would probably do something very hasty.

At 10/28/09 01:19 AM, daves234 wrote: Well unless you don't count glen beck then it's not really both

Notice that he isn't on CNN anymore, he is on Fox.

At 10/27/09 09:21 PM, Gobblemeister wrote: I'll tell you now why FOX shouldn't be censored

FOX news is the only outlet not mastermined by the liberal agenda

Wow.

AKA it's the only outlet with an obscenely conservative bias.

Every aspect of America nowadays is choked by the left wing

Watch CNN sometime. They are neither liberal, nor conservative. They pan disgustingly to both sides, hoping to be seen as fair, while instead they give neither a side, nor news, nor information. They aren't biased themselves, but they aren't unbiased - instead they present both biases, but none of the information. They are almost a tabloid.

They are not left-wing though.

No other ideas are being communicated to children and soon Americans will degenerate into a close minded group of overly excitable left wing extremeists

FOX is the only network still communicating the right wing, if you have a problem with it, don't watch it but lets not become fucking China and censor everything that disagrees with the left wings

Agreed.

Americans deserve opposing viewpoints so they can decide for themselves

Agreed again. I disagree enormously though with your idea of the liberal majority, though it is true that if someone is extremely conservative anything less conservative (even people like Ron Paul) are going to seem liberal.

At 10/27/09 06:08 AM, MwnciHead wrote: Agreed. The "west" always needs an enemy. Always has, and probably always will.

Everyone does. Putting nation against nation or religion against religion is a beautiful way to control people.

Sorry about the incoherence of my post, it's about 3 AM here.

At 10/27/09 05:41 AM, MwnciHead wrote: Ever been to Turkey? didnt spot much opression out there, other than to Camels. Quite a sweeping statement you have come up with... I would modify it by stating : "In extremist Islamic societies, there is a large degree of opression", like there is in any extremist country, be it North Korea, Cuba, China, Iran, bored of listing them...

I think you missed the point of his message. He was trying to say that "they" are evil and are trying to destroy the world because of "their" beliefs, etc. etc..

It's a classic belief. Islam is just a convenient way to fill "they" right now, as the Muslim world is, in general, among the most unstable. Back in the early Middle Ages, when the Islamic world was far more stable, creative, productive, and overall tolerant than the anarchic, Feudal Europe that only spawned landlords. That is, until the Pope decided that instead of fighting amongst each other (that is, fellow Catholics), let's take the fight to the barbaric Muslims!

I'm sure at this time the Muslims began saying that "they" (Christians) are evil and are trying to destroy the world, etc. etc..

At 10/25/09 02:37 PM, morefngdbs wrote: eroding your rights & your Constitution one little piece at a time.
As citizens of your country you all should be out in the streets demanding the repeal of the 'Patriot Act'
There is nothing patriotic about it... it was just a perfect way for Bush & his cronies to completely circumvent your personal rights , after 9/11.
That more Americans were not outraged , shows they just don't care...or really didn't understand what was done to them !

It is pretty much eroded away now; very little of it still actually stands. It had bits of it chipped off since it was first instated, and had continued to until now.

I was definitely furious and scared by it, though I was just a child at the time.

All extremist parties base their extreme views on actual problems, but they bring things so far that they end up creating more problems themselves by diminishing freedoms and human rights with more government intervention.

So yes, they deserve just as much shit as they get, and more. It's appalling that people actually vote for them.

At 10/23/09 11:54 PM, TheMason wrote: And why would it be so right to request that they be taken down? They are not codified as law. They do not mandate that people be a part of a religion.

If they are displayed as authoritative, though, that is definitely wrong.

They are however a part of the Western tradition that forms the basis of the intellectual traditions of our system of law. As a connection to history...I think they are appropriate.

Other parts of the Bible, perhaps, but the Ten Commandments seem a bit... commanding.

The whole point about fighting the "dread commie atheist heathen" is your strawman and has nothing to do with anything I have thus far said.

I wasn't basing that part on you, that was a bit of a joke in general. Perhaps it was misplaced.

However, Congress making a law to make people be Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Aethists, Mormons, Satanists, Masons or whatever...that I have a problem.

But even promoting these religions or lack thereof should not happen in a public place.

At 10/23/09 06:05 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: And by sports I mean wrapping our hands in thongs so we don't hurt ourselves and beat the shit out of one another.

And after that we will go sleep with our numerous wives (we are all married in a way) and then send our 5-year old children off to war.

At 10/23/09 07:08 PM, TheMason wrote: Sorry Gum, you'll have to do better than that.

Yes the first commandment is to worship one God, that is true. However, it does not have the power of law to compell a person to adopt any faith.

However, if the Ten Commandments was clearly displayed in any public place, it would rightly be requested to be taken down. Elfer pointed out that the picture in question is not really clearly the Ten Commandments and could be alluding to it as well as a number of different things. If they were clearly hung in the Supreme Court, though, they should be removed. Similarly, "In God We Trust" does not belong on our currency. We are no longer fighting the dread commie atheist heathen, so it isn't necessary propaganda in order to protect our vital bodily fluids anymore.

At 10/23/09 03:11 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Plato's Republic tells you to shake babies to comfort them, because it's just like how they are jostled in the womb.

Oh, and only eat raw things. It makes you tough.

only people who've read it will get the references

Not to mention that comfortable beds soften you, but sleeping on slabs of stone make you fit to be a ruler.

That sounds feasible, Elfer. However, if he didn't, why doesn't he prove it?

At 10/22/09 03:33 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 10/21/09 08:38 PM, Stoicish wrote: I try my best to not listen to a guy who raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

HE DID? SOMEONE CALL THE POLICE!!!

You do realize you're guilty of libel by saying that, right?

Senator Ellison should prove that he is not working our enemies though! Also, if Glenn Beck didn't do it, then why doesn't he deny that he, Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. I don't think it's true, but I feel like saying that he should prove it if he didn't.

I've seen The Seventh Seal so many times that I can quote most of the dialogue, in Swedish.

At 10/21/09 08:38 PM, Stoicish wrote: I try my best to not listen to a guy who raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

Let's not distort the alleged facts, it was a young girl that he raped and murdered in 1990. We don't think he, Glenn Beck raped and murdered girl in 1990; we think he didn't. But if he didn't why wouldn't he prove he didn't?

At 10/21/09 07:27 PM, Elfer wrote: So um, as a guy who strongly supports the separation of church and state, I'm not actually too mad about that. I've previously expressed the opinion that the depiction of the ten commandments at the supreme court should probably be removed, but I now admit that this position was based on false assumptions and a lack of research effort on my part.

This is very true and good to know about the topic. Thanks for the information, and I agree with you in the subject.

At 10/21/09 03:41 PM, TheMason wrote:

I don't think your a very good american then, since the constitution clarifys the seperation of chruch and state, and these two things very clearly violate that.

Does it? Here is what the first amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Displaying the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or on government property does not establish a religion. It is not saying that everyone must be a Catholic or a Baptist. Hell, it doesn't even mandate that one has to be a Christian.

The Ten Commandments are a historical code of law akin to the stelles of Hammarabi. They have had an impact on civilization and the development of Western Law.

The Ten Commandments are a historical Abrahamic religious code of law. NOT a government code of law.

Therefore since their display does not mandate a religion nor oppress free exercise of differing religions...it does not go against what the Constitution says.

It directly quotes a religious passage and displays it in a governmental organization. Not to mention, one of the commandments is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

The only problem I have with him is that he still won't prove that he didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990.

At 10/18/09 07:44 PM, Stretchysumo wrote: Platos republic sounds like an awful idea, extreme censorship, and a single man with all the power. It just wouldn't work.

It wouldn't have a single man with all the power, it would have a class of philosopher kings with all the power.

At 10/19/09 12:52 AM, Crazyhobo51 wrote: Take for example the Romans, first a representative democracy,

Hardly. The Romans had three classes, the Patricians, the Plebians, and the Slaves. The slaves made up about a majority of their population by the time that the tribunes of the plebians were fully instated, but overall only the Senators (made of Patricians) got a vote about policy, as well as the Tribunes. Think of the Tribunes as a sort of deciding factor if the vote did not have a clear majority, but other than that it hardly had any effect. So it was hardly a representative democracy. More accurate would be a representative aristocracy.

they soon starting making faulty decisions and bad judgements, forcing one brave man, Julius Caesar, to bring about the height of Roman peace, power, and prosperity by declaring himself emperor.

Also incorrect. He never declared himself emperor. According to legend, the crown was placed on his head three times but he rejected it all three times, although the crown "weighed heavier on his head each time."

Caesar was assassinated before he could proclaim himself emperor, and then a civil war happened and his nephew, Octavian, became emperor.

It is for this reason that I believe that we must have a single, all powerful ruler in order to thrive as a nation. But this leader must prove him or her self to be incorruptible, a force of justice who will govern based only on set rules.

And this is why democracy works better than dictatorships - dictatorships are based on only one person's thoughts and considerations. An incorruptible person is very hard to find, compared to a person ruthless, greedy, and ambitious enough to become a leader.

Rules that say that yes, people do have rights, and yes, we must treat people with a certain degree of compassion. But this ruler will enforce all of those rules without exception and without regard for personal gain, only the gain of the nation and its people. No longer will non-citizens have healthcare, no longer will the poor grossly leech off the wealth of the upper classes. A utopia will develop, one that we can only love.

Any thoughts?

Sounds far sillier than democracy. Also, if you want to make an argument based on historical fact, it helps to know what you are talking about.

Wow... And I thought the American far-right was bad...

I've never heard anyone say that Plato's Republic is actually something that we should do. It does have some value, though, in some of its ideas, and it's important when one considers why it was written - that is, to think of a different government type than the corrupt democracy that eventually led to the Peloponnesian War and the Greek's downfall.

Well, not to change the subject, but I was invited to come to this here crew with its fine people by a certain Mr. Patton. So I'd like to join by gauging your reaction to this:

Machiavelli was not actually sympathetic to principalities (little dictatorships), and despite writing The Prince he was actually one of the earliest modern Republicans and believed in the separation of powers a couple hundred years before Montesquieu.

Any doubts, or is this already common knowledge? I feel that he's probably one of the most misunderstood historical figures.

At 10/15/09 04:24 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 10/15/09 09:20 AM, Tancrisism wrote: New England was originally settled by religious people trying to be able to live and practice in peace and autonomy; the Chesapeake area was originally settled by a mercantilist charter.

To early for mercantilism there Tanc. If you'll recall, mercantilism wasn't a system until you get into Jean Baptiste Colbert, Louis' minister of finance.

Not true. Mercantilism was not a general system, just a pattern of overall government protectionism and control of the economy, especially to insure exports over imports.
( Actually a pretty good article. )

Now it would be fair to say that it was founded for more economical purposes than was New England, since it was done through joint stock companies looking to make a profit.

Indeed.

At 10/15/09 12:24 PM, AngyaL wrote: I think Obama doesn't have enough merits to get the Nobel Peace Prize. He only has promises after promises but very little merit, and after he got the peace prize he sends more troops to Afghanistan, what an act of peace.

I too agree that it may be a bit early to give him the prize, but I don't understand how the war in Afghanistan could serve as a deterrent. He was elected president while the country was at two wars. If he immediately pulled out, the consequences could have been (and could be) dire - remember that the Taliban was created by the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, following Russia's retreat, and that it was the "peaceful" policy of Neville Chamberlain that eventually led to World War II.

Obama is dealing with the war in Afghanistan the way he feels will solve the situation the fastest. It is very unlikely that he would start another war during his presidency, unlike many other presidents we've had.