You use a quote from my post then the 1st thing you state is "only the uneducated", then you do it again in the 2nd paragraph above.
For the record, I made no such comment, here again, you are misquoting to do what now? Make your argument sound better? To discredit me? I said poorly educated. Both times, I said poorly educated. I don't have the best education, but as I did graduate from a difficult to get into university and maintained a good GPA through my time there, I do consider myself to be better educated then most. Much of the world is poorly educated. Much of the world's population would have trouble graduating from high school. Much of the world's population doesn't even go to college nor has any desire to. This is the basis from which I say POORLY educated. Again, don't add your own bias to my comment. If you're going to quote me, please do it correctly.
I am supposed to read the rest of that dribble from some "overly" educated arrogant rant. Forget it.
First, its not a rant. I thought we were having a discussion. People of differing points do that occasionally. No where in anything I wrote am I discrediting you, flaming, name calling, screaming, yelling, or attacking on a personal level that would be indicative of a rant. I only pointed out a flaw in a single comment, then pointed out the flaw in your source as it pertained to the flaw in your comment. I discredited your source, not you. If you dispute it, fine, put it out there so I can read it. If you feel personally slighted, that would be you adding in your own bias, not me.
I then followed up with a counter to your clearly stated opinion that the US spreads its values with war. If you consider a differing point or information a person is willing to put out there for you to take in and consider as something that is purely dribble, then you are as closed minded as those you are speaking out against. Deny it all you want, but its all right there in plain text. If you don't want to read it, that's fine, you won't hurt my feelings, but don't call it "dribble from some "overly" educated arrogant rant." What you are doing, that is a rant. Note the difference. By the way, I'm inclined to ask, did you really mean to say drivel instead of dribble? Just curious, you really don't have to answer that if you don't want to.
Gregor Mendel was an Augustinian friar of German decent who gained posthumous fame as the founder of the new science of genetics. Although the significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century, the independent rediscovery of these laws formed the foundation of the modern science of genetics.
Hey look, I can quote wikipedia. Just poking fun since I think Myfist0's mood soured a little bit there. I really am disappointed by that reaction though. I guess I had built up a higher expectation in my mind.
“why he was posthumously recognized and why an independent re-discovery was necessary” since he was under the auspices of the RCC … whom you SAY … just loves science and all its wonders, hahaha?
He was posthumously recognized because that's how science is sometimes. They don't recognize a person while they are alive, so they do it after they are not. I did not say the RCC loves science and all its wonders. Please, quote it for me if I did. I would love to see it. Like I said to Myfist0, please don't quote me as saying something I didn't or add in your own bias to my comments. Forming an argument based on something that was never said won't gain you anything. Plus, as we all know, good science has to be independently verified. Results have to be repeatable. That's how science works. If someone performs an experiment today that doesn't follow with accepted science as we know it, I would hope that 400 years down the road when they are later proved to be correct in their assumptions and their experiments proven to be valid by independent research, they are posthumously recognized for their contributions. Science, thankfully, is good like that.
After his death, the succeeding abbot burned all papers in Mendel's collection, WTF man??? Is that what you call ‘Church supported’ or is it just the ‘Scientists at the time criticized his work’ hehehe.
It is true that the work was burned, but not for the either/or reason you present. If you had finished the sentence that you took that from, you probably wouldn't have gotten the karma for the find. But even though the work was burned, it in no way shape or form changes the fact that it was the church that gave Mendel the place and the funding to do his work and not the sciences. The scientists at the time did in fact, criticize his work. That is the reason I chose this example. As I stated, to prove the point that the church does provide positively to research and science, even though it has gone out of its way to prevent its advancement in the past, all one has to do is admire the work of Gregor Mendel. You cannot dispute that. The abbot that succeeded him burned all of his paperwork to end the fighting over taxation since its not unlikely that his office would be filled with correspondences, legal notes, and other work relating to taxation disputes since it was Mendel's primary focus after being elevated to abbot himself, not to deliberately destroy his scientific work. No where does it state that the abbot, the church, or other scientists intentionally sought and destroyed his works on behalf of the church or otherwise. That is just not true. Its far easier to have some underlings just clear out the entire office and throw everything into the fireplace. Its very possible the succeeding abbot never even read a single page of anything that was burned, just had it pulled from where ever and tossed it in the fire. To further the point, even if the succeeding abbot had read everything and fully knew what it was, it was work that was mocked by the sciences at the time, he has absolutely no incentive to keep any of it.
Do you actually have any common sense ... one does have to wonder?
Stop wondering because the answer is yes, I do have common sense. Enough of which that I don't have to listen to the media to figure out what I should be thinking. Do you dispute that the US was attacked? Do you dispute that everyone in congress wanted to punish anyone involved in said attack? Do you dispute that congress declared war? People are so quick to blame Bush for everything, completely ignoring the simple fact that the president can only send troops somewhere for 30 days. After that, its congress, your elected representatives, people whom you voted for to make decisions on your behalf, that figure out what's going to happen. Why do you think Obama couldn't make good on bringing the troops home when he said he would? Its simple. Its not his call. Congress has to do that. I don't hold it against him because its not his fault. Just like I don't blame Bush for the war because he didn't declare war. That's just good common sense right there. If you can sit there and tell me that you really believe the same thing would still have happened even if the people of the USA decided that the attack on the twin towers was just bad luck and didn't want revenge in any way, shape, or form, then I would have to sit here and seriously question your common sense.
Do you really have to wonder? It's rather obvious where that kind of thinking comes from isn't it?
No actually, it doesn't. Please share with me where exactly it comes from since its so obvious to you. Just because I don't hear an issue and then proceed to pick one side or the other, doesn't mean I know nothing. You picked a side didn't you? How else could you make such a comment. For all you know I may have been a central piece in many of the activities that the US has participated in on the world scale for the past 20 years. In such a case, my common sense and knowledge would far outreach yours. Just because you don't know it, doesn't mean someone else doesn't know it. To borrow TwoBoobz example of choice, Galileo Galilei knew the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, yet, common sense at the time would tell you that the Earth was. You would be one mocking him and questioning his theories, or you would be one deliberately attacking the church. I would do neither. I would be one listening to him and asking how he came to such an odd conclusion so that I could make my own choice when I feel enough information has been provided by both sides.
Why? Were you laughing too hard? It gets even better after the second paragraph.
So you really don't care to hear anything that might be different then your own opinion, you'd rather mock it and make fun of it? Interesting.
You seem to be exhibiting the very same same thing you are criticizing.
That would be you adding in your own bias, please don't do that. I've not once said I think my ways are better, nor that my comments are fact. They are true within the scope of knowledge that I possess and I shared them with you all to discuss. I have not lorded over anyone, nor picked on them for their points of view, nor even made any backhanded comments to try to convince someone else reading that anyone here is full of themselves or otherwise. I'm not making those comments. Maybe I lack a piece of information on something, and maybe I have more information then someone else. We won't know it if everyone just writes it off as dribble or drivel, whatever the case may be. I'm just here commentating based on what my lifetime of learning has given me.
Than how can you be so sure they demand more allegiance?
As I said, my personal experiences there proved to me that patriotism is over saturated in their media. It was said to me by a Canadian, they force it onto their population so much that the population doesn't even realize it anymore, to which I went there to see for myself, on several dozen different occasions. Its not like I just went there once, saw something and returned home validated by the experience, I actually had gone up there to disprove what I was told, having experienced the severe lack of patriotism here in the States (having done this pre 9/11/2001), only to be persuaded to change my mind. The maple leaf is everywhere up there. People here in the States fly the flags of their ancestor's home rather then their current home. Its not like they're told to go ahead and fly someone else's flag just because you can. When most of the influences in your life carry patriotic undertones, the government doesn't have to come out and say we demand your allegiance... They already have it.
Do you know why US Corporations advertise that way? What exactly does the actions of corporations have to do with the Canadian govt demanding allegiance?
Because to me, it seems that they are told to. Do you honestly believe corporations would spend the time and money necessary to redo their logos and every single ad campaign to include a foreign national symbol if they didn't have to? Use that common sense here you all seem to want to talk about all of a sudden. The answer is no, they wouldn't waste the money. They are a business, the goal is to make money, not throw it away by redoing everything a second time. What does it have to do with the government? Everything. If the government didn't make it so advertisements showed their national symbol, then there would be no reason to do it. I don't see Tim Horton's rebranding their US stores with US flags or eagles. Hell, use my example from before, you can do it right here from your very own computer: www.homedepot.com http://www.homedepot.com.mx/ and www.homedepot.ca Right at the very top of the Canadian version, there's the flag. The US version and the Mexico version? Nothing. Let's look at a non US company like Honda. The US site, no patriotic images, the Mexico site, no patriotic images, the Japan site, no patriotic images, the Canada site... No? Oh wait there it is, the 6th flash add in the cycle. Maple leaf, and message saying made in Canada by Canadians... The plot thickens.
Our ships were being sunk because we were actively involved in supplying countries who were fighting the Axis. We may not have committed troops at that point but we were very much involved. Maybe you should learn about the US Lend-Lease Act.
The Lend-Lease act was signed in 1941 a year and a half after the war started and 9 months before the US entered the war. I know quite a bit about it. Our ships were being sunk well before that. My comment still stands, at the ONSET of WW2, the US was still committed to not getting involved. Check the wiki on the lend-lease act for this quote: "This program was a decisive step away from non-interventionist policy, which had dominated United States foreign relations since the end of World War I, towards international involvement."
From the first line of the page on Non-interventionism (again from the wiki so you can easily verify its existence): "Non-interventionism, the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history in the United States. It is a form of "realism"."
Your premise that our ships were being sunk because we were in fact involved is false.
You are totally clueless on this one.
Please read the second sentence of the second paragraph and report back. Honestly, I seem to be very much more informed then what you are giving me credit for.
Do you really believe that the USG was simply bowing down to Saudi Royal Family demands?
If you're going to quote me, do it correctly. I said: "Desert Storm 1, for as much as conspiracy people want to believe it was about oil, the US only got involved because the Saudi's (our ally) demanded it out of fears that once done with Kuwait, the Iraqi's would go after them." Do you really think a nation would openly support the US especially considering the hostile nature of the region to the US? To further expand your knowledge, the US was sending assets to Saudi Arabia as of around mid 1990, the UN decided the US was to lead a coalition of nations into Kuwait to liberate it in early 1991, to which we did. Had we not already had so much already there to protect our Saudi allies, we would have taken a supporting role to the UK, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, instead of the other way around.
No. Because the group of Saudis who were involved in the 9/11 attacks were also dissidents of the Saudi Royal Family.
That may be true as well, but my point is still the primary and overwhelming factor. Not a non issue as you're making it out to be. The US was given access to search and capture anyone involved, that is why we didn't invade. Just because they were dissidents to the current government there as well is a bonus point so to speak and was probably a contributing factor in the Saudis granting that access. It had little to no consequence with our government's decision.
Are you really that stupid or simply just letting your arrogance get in the way of reason?
I'm not being arrogant, and I believe I've proven myself to be far from stupid. Name any one single country that would step up and prevent the US from invading any of those countries. Go ahead and name one. That's all I ask. Just one. The way I see it, the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and kicked out their governments. No one on this planet disputes the fact that we invaded, removed their governments, and began setting up new ones. Who rose up to stop us? Did any country send in military power to stop the US from achieving its goals of removing their respective leaders from power? Many countries around the world spoke out against what we were doing when we first started. No one tried to stop it. In fact, several came around to eventually support us. That is what I base that comment on. If you dispute it, be my guest and do so. But as the facts stand, the US is in a position to invade and not suffer global backlash in the form of military action at this present time. That is not arrogance or stupidity. That is a factual observation that you should be able to see for yourself as well. Arrogance and stupidity would be ignoring history, especially one that is as recent as that.
The USG participates in opening markets to capitalism above all. Whether it prefers democratic ideals is secondary since it prefers a dictatorship over democracy if the dictatorship allows us access to its natural resources and markets.
The US, as per what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan after the removal of their governments, has participated in setting up new democracies and thus the spread of democracy itself. Having a new trading partner is only possible if that government allows it. Case and point comes from Cuba. A well known dictatorship who's population is willing to die to get at our freedoms and goods. The US has had no interest in opening up the market of one of its closest neighbors, in fact, it has done the exact opposite and block all possibilities. If the US held to the ideal of opening its market up to anyone anywhere, we have a market right there 90 miles to our south that our businesses could take huge advantage of. They would go in with virtually no competition and basically take over the market without a fight. I'm pretty sure labor laws aren't as inclusive as they are in the States, so there's a pretty close to home workforce to take advantage of as well... that's a huge resource. Just think of all of the money that could be made by importing authentic Cuban cigars? So no. Capitalism above all is not a policy of the US government, not on paper, and not in practice.