Question regarding PPRUNE

[enigma]

Dittos

Dittos to all, and an addition at the end.

Liberals by there very nature cannot and will not protect anyone. ..............................................................

Liberals hate Christianity; Christianity is a hindrance to liberal ideas of progressive social relations. It must be removed. This is a cardinal tenet of liberalism today, and it is clear why there is no desire among the left to promote the Christian faith, why they defend abortion, homosexuality, pre and extramarital sex, and almost every other vile crudity that pervades our country: men must be "free," and Christianity is the greatest obstacle to that freedom and does all sorts of evil to prevent people from being "free" In the liberal mind, "freedom" equals "progress," so, Christianity must be eliminated, or at least relegated to a noninfluential role in society's affairs.

.................................................................
LA

LA,

As if you needed more, here's something else that ticks me. Liberals spent the entire 20th century attempting to remove GOD from American culture. They succeeded in removing GOD from government and education in the sixties. If one watches popular entertainment/news, one realizes that the only group who can be made fun of, is Christians. Especially Christian males.
BUT, the same media who attempts to rid society of Christian influences, is currently attempting to ram Islam down our throats. I think that there actions/words on that particular issue reveal their hypocracy, and their contempt for Christianity.

For all of you who will attempt to defend Islam, go ahead, I welcome a good conversation. For those who want to defend the hypocracy of liberalisms treatment of Christians, go ahead. Maybe we should get Mark to start another bbs for religious debate.

regards,
8N

 

[enigma]

Enigma,

Boy, you sure surprised me with your pprune post (the long one). Granted you don't see any "across the pond bashing" on this board, but that's because it has almost zero non-American posters and seldom contains international or even domestic political viewpoints.

Surplus1, Sorry to surprise you. Are you insinuating that we would "bash" any non-Americans if they frequented this bbs?

With respect to aviation, we Americans seem to think that US companies are the only ones out there and generally know little if anything about foreign carriers. Just as we don't care what European, Asian, Latin American carrier is hiring or not (like you point out) why would you expect them to care if Comair is interviewing, Spirit is negotiating or USAir is furloughing? I think you're being unfair with that view.

How so, I didn't say that the Pprune bbs wasn't relevant, or that the rest of the aviation world was unimportant. I only said it wasn't relavent to me as I have no interest in working outside of the continental US of A.

I sure don't want to pick a fight with you, but when you say things like " We should leave them alone, and we should lock down our borders to anyone" and the rest of the stuff in that paragraph, I have to tell you that this American thinks that your isolationist views are out of touch with reality and not in the best interests of our country.

You guys can't have it both ways. On one hand, ya'll post that America acts like a big bully. I say we should stay out of everyone elses business, and now I'm told that that would not be in the best interests of the country. Which is it? (generic question, not specifically directed to surplus1)

As a matter of fact, it is not only as hard for a non-citizen to get a job here as it is for Americans to get jobs in other countries, in most cases it is much harder. The fact that we have so many non-citizens working here illegally is only because WE are willing to exploit them and violate our own laws to do it.

How are we exploiting a person who comes here of his own volition?

Another fallacy in your thinking is the idea that people come here from other countries to "take advantage of our freedoms". In most cases they do not. People come here to make money. Most of them don't give a damx about our "freedoms" and don't have a clue as to what they are. When it comes to western Europeans, they have no need to come here for our "freedoms" for most of the western Europeans enjoy the very same freedoms, if not more.

Here is what I originally posted. "
Any "across the pond bashing" you see hasn't happened with regularity on this board. .............................
IMO, The US of A should give Europe, and the world what it wants. We should leave them alone, and we should lock down our boarders to anyone. Period. Kick out all the illegal immigrants and green carders, IE, anyone who came here to take advantage of our freedoms and then go home. "
That could have been worded better. What I was trying to say, was that those who come here to use our freedom against us, should be kicked out. For example, the terrorists who have no intention of becoming productive citizens, they are here only because our freedoms allow them easy access to disrupt our lives. I would rather remove them and allow American citizens the ability to move about the country, than keep them and restrict all of us in an effort to protect us from their actions.

Whether we like it or not, we are but a small percentage of the world's population. If we help to fight what you call the world's battles, we do so because it is in our own interest, not because we are "nice guys". That "nice guy" idea is an urban myth. Yes there was a time when we were self-sufficient but if you really want to take us back to that time, we'll all be living as we did in the 19th century. Are you sure that's what you want?

I don't think that the "nice guy" idea is an urban myth. The people of this country have a history asserting themselves on the basis of a higher moral authority. Even the liberal thought process, which I disagree with, is somewhat based upon the ethics of doing right by others. (Just to keep you guessing , I respect classic liberals, I just don't know of many.)

As to self sufficiency, I would choose to give up my second VCR if it meant that the US of A could remain free from "foreign entanglements"

We consume far more of everything than everyone else in the world combined. We also produce much more of many things than we are able to consume ourselves. If you want to shift us back from a high-tech society in need of international markets for our products to an agrarian economy we could probably be self-sufficient and isolated again. Understand however, what you're asking for. If we do that, we will also cease to be the "super power" that we are today and it will no longer be possible for us to impose our will on others wherever in the world we choose to do so.

If I read this correctly, you are saying that in order to maintain our standard of living, we must remain engaged in the world market. I agree. However, I don't think that this means that we must become engaged in every little skirmish that occurs in Europe. Once again, I would accept a slightly lowered standard of living in order to remain free from foreign entanglements.

Forget what? If you think Europeans have forgotten what we did in Europe during WWII and how it liberated them from German occupation and prevented their enslavement by the Soviet Union you are very, very wrong. They remember and most are grateful. That however, does not mean that they have to kiss our a$$es every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Are you willing to kiss the backside of the French because you remember that we could not have won our war of independence from the British without their help? Are you willing to do it again because we would have been defeated in the War of 1812 had it not been for their assistance, again? Somehow, I think you may have forgotten too?

Who said that they should kiss our arse? Remember, I'm advocating that we leave them alone as much as possible.

Let "us" not forget that the Marshall plan was not a "gift". Most of it was money we loaned and most of it has been repaid, with the notable exception of Great Britain. Let us also not forget that we, once more, did it (both in Europe and Japan) because it was in the interest of the United States to do so. We did NOT do it due to generosity and anyone who believes we did just hasn't studied or read very much.

I disagree with your implication. Yes we had some self interest in mind, we also felt a obligation to lift up a mangled land.

Yes, the American people are by nature generous and give much to those in need both at home and abroad. That is laudable. It uses is money to buy its way and promote the political and economic interests of the United States. As an American, I'm not really complaining about that, but please don't call it generosity or a desire to help others. It is anything but. You should also recognize that the recipients are not unaware of our motives.

We also did not fight the war in Europe because we wanted to be nice to the Europeans. We did it because if we had not, your language would now be German or Russian instead of English. We fought the war with Japan in order to protect the economic interests of the United States in Asia, prevent the expansion of the Japanese empire and extend our own power in that region of the world.

How can you assume that we would be speaking German had we not fought in Europe?
We faught the war in the Pacific, because Japan wanted to dominate that region and realized that the only way to do so would be to eliminate us as a potential obstacle. Surely you remember Pearl Harbor?

Like every super power that has preceded us in the world, the United States has built an empire. The only real difference between what other imperial powers have done and our methodology is that they expanded their empires by taking and holding the lands of others. We expand our empire with economic power and the "threat" of military force. There really isn't much difference in the final analysis. All imperial powers are resented by those they control and dominate.

Just who do we control and dominate? Specifics please.

Calling the UN a socialist organization and advocating that we withdraw is really specious. If that is indicative of the views of Texans, then I hope that your fellow Texan will not gain another term in the White House. Remember too that the concept of a "world government" is not embraced by any nation. Other peoples guard their national identity and sovereignty as jealously as we do ours. That concept is academian and resides mostly in Universities, many of which are in New England and California not Europe.

How can you not call the UN socialist?

Texans are mostly independent libertarian types, who prefer to live and let live. Bush is not a Texan, I seem to remember that he was born in Kennebunkport. (could be wrong on that one)

I have to agree with you when you say you are no student of history. more money and bigger guns in there hey day. None of them respected the views of others. Where are they now?

Man, you certainly read between the lines a lot. As posted earlier, I probably understand and know more history than you think. I just write too slowly to write a book on every subject. If I wasn't on a reserve day today, I'd not be writing this. As for as thinking that everyone should think and act like Americans, where did you get that?

continued

 

[enigma]

continued reply to Surpus1

Is that the future you really want for the United States of America? I certainly hope not. I would like this Nation to be around for my great, great, great grandchildren to inherit. Adoption of your isolationist policy and the lack of tolerance for the ways and views of non-Americans will guarantee that it isn't.

Once again, where do you read that I lack tolerence of non-American views. I am perfectly happy for them to have their views, but that doesn't mean that I should live according to their views. My view of the future is my view, not your interpretation of my view. Why have you decided that my advocating that we stay out of foreign entanglements is in any way intolerence. I just happen to believe that good fences make good neighbors.

Sorry for the sermon, but what you said really bothered me. It has nothing to do with pprune.

Glad to be able to get your mind off of scope and ALPA

The Brits are good people and candidly, have a better talent for the use of our common language which often seems to confuse us yanks.

The French are good people too. Both we and the Brits would understand that if we could only speak French.

As for the rest of the folks over there, until recently, isn't that were most of our ancestors came from? Why can't we just get along? [/B]

Who said that the Brits or the French weren't good people?

regards,
8N, a Texan of Entirely British Isles descent. (Higgins, Queen, Baird, Waddell, etc)