Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, I will continue to point out that if he is a liberal atheist, he certainly doesn't come off as one with his constant babbling about liberalism, socialism, and "anti-God". I mean, when is the last time you heard a conservative Christian constantly rambling about conservatism, religion, and "anti-atheists"???
My guess is that Arach was brought up in the 50s and 60s when there was this big push-back against communism and left-wing thinking. You know, McCarthyism and all that - when America actually had political prisoners and you could lose your job or even be deported if someone even thought you were a communist.
Kind reminiscent of the Gestapo, really, but fascism *is* a right-wing ideal.
Anyway, one of the ways they pushed back against communism was to try and bring about this resurgence of religion - because, heh, they were the so-called "Godless communists."
It just goes to show you the hypocrisy of our country - freedom of religion means you are free to believe as I tell you to believe. You can't be an atheists because that automatically made you a communist. Meanwhile, all the ideals that our Founders fought for go up in a little Jesus-shaped puff of smoke.
I find it curious that the Soviet Union never - not during the entirety of the Cold War - made any public snarky remarks about America clinging to their Christianity. But America made plenty of snarky comments about the Soviet Union being atheistic.
Now, I'm not saying that, oh yeah, let's move to Russia. But it *does* say a lot about the corrosive nature of religion that we cannot respect another nation's religious belief - unless they happen to be Christian. If that sort of intolerance were pandemic, then the USSR would have made those snarky comments about America's over-indulgence in religion. But it didn't.
Which is pretty sad when America is more intolerant than the Soviet Union.
I don’t know who you mean, but most people are not that invested in (or angered by) people’s opinions in a forum. Maybe he should focus on a healthy diet and exercise so he doesn’t need meds at all?
Some people - gee, I won't say who - think that the moment you write with some fire or some passion, it means you're having a meltdown and are about to have a heart attack. It's the only way some people - gee, I won't say who - can even deal with the situation. They think they're coming off as somehow superior.
Except ... it doesn't.
It's just - that person, I won't say who - creates an alternate reality in which they make a response. If they can't tackle reality, they invent a strawman and attack that, instead. Because:
A: I don't have high blood pressure
B: I don't take medicine for high blood pressure
C: I'm not even "a guy" - but if my name can be masculine, so too can a name like ... Clara.
D: My blood pressure or my gender has nothing whatever to do with fascistic Christians appealing to the mods to ban the atheist posters and exile them to just one subforum.
Some people - gee, I won't say who - think that the moment you write with some fire or some passion, it means you're having a meltdown and are about to have a heart attack. It's the only way some people - gee, I won't say who - can even deal with the situation. They think they're coming off as somehow superior.
Except ... it doesn't.
It's just - that person, I won't say who - creates an alternate reality in which they make a response. If they can't tackle reality, they invent a strawman and attack that, instead. Because:
A: I don't have high blood pressure
B: I don't take medicine for high blood pressure
C: I'm not even "a guy" - but if my name can be masculine, so too can a name like ... Clara.
D: My blood pressure or my gender has nothing whatever to do with fascistic Christians appealing to the mods to ban the atheist posters and exile them to just one subforum.
I think there is a difference between passion - and appearing unstable. And a difference between discussing a subject in a thread - and getting personal. Maybe if people focused less on forum drama - there would be more time to discuss topics, and not people.
Actually, the Soviet Union lost 21,000,000 if you count civilians. Anyhow ...
No, I wasn't counting civilians.
Quote:
Now - while I understand you want to diss America because we didn't come running to your rescue on September 2nd, 1939, that doesn't mean you can distort history in quite the way you have.
That wasn't exactly my point. What I was dissing is the extremely annoying belief so prevalent in America, that they came rushing to the rescue and saved our arses. It's not true. By the time America entered WWII, (and I accept your reasons) Hitler was on the run and finished, largely due to Stalingrad and it's likely, baring some miracle on the side of Germany, that the war was won. Britain is grateful for the help America gave but they are fed up to the teeth of being made to think that they should be eternally kissing America's arse for something that they didn't actually do. We should be no more grateful to America than we are to Canada, Australia, NZ, India and a few more countries. We never hear of any of those other countries claiming that they saved Britain's arse. My point is that if we need to be beholden to anyone it is those 'stinking, Commie bastards' that Arch hates so much.
Quote:
Also, keep in mind how YOU would feel, being dragged into a world war that was none of your business. As far as Americans saw it, WWII was just another war that Europe started because it can't get along with itself
Exactly. Which is why I pointed out that, had America not been attacked by Japan, it is extremely unlikely that it would have even joined the war - which is why I am countering the we had to come rushing in to save your arse claim from Arch.
Quote:
Like it or not, Americans at the time had a dim view of Britain and it's Empire. Just as the USA had to fight a revolution to get out from under Britain's heel, many Americans felt that other nations should do the same. We believed in self-determination for places like Egypt, India, Iraq, and other nations you kept a hold of as colonies.
Believe me. I have no love for the British empire. It was a despicable time in our history
Quote:
The point is that America did not have a love affair with Britain in August of 1939 and saw no reason to get embroiled in yet ANOTHER European war.
Yes I know! That isn't my argument with Arch. It's the 'If it hadn't been for us' posturing that I find annoying, not to mention disrespectful to all the other countries that did their bit.
Quote:
As I said, if not for the two atomic weapons, you folks would STILL be at each others' throats.
Wait until Brexit!
Quote:
But ... being angry at America because we didn't rush to Britain's aid in September 1939 just shows that you don't have the greatest understanding of the time period.
I am not angry at America. I am angry at people who think America was the only country in it and that we need to eternally kiss it's arse. I didn't bring it up, he did - twice, both with the same comment about rushing in to save us. I was simply pointing out that America didn't enter the war because it wanted to, it joined because it was attacked itself. I think we agree that if that had not happened, America wouldn't have gone anywhere. I would not oppose the reason you have given for America not joining at the beginning. What I do appose is the opinion that seems prevalent in America and which I witnessed first hand on many occasions, that America came rushing in to save our arses when it didn't.
Quote:
And no offense, Rafius.
None taken...but I think you may have misinterpreted my grouse with Arch. No matter. We're good I hope.
I think there is a difference between passion - and appearing unstable. And a difference between discussing a subject in a thread - and getting personal. Maybe if people focused less on forum drama - there would be more time to discuss topics, and not people.
That sounds great and all, but talking about the people posting, and their credibility for instance, is sometimes a must. Also, take for example any thread about homosexuality. If you are LGBTQ, and the thread has people talking about how you don't deserve equal rights and you are an abomination/pervert/pedo/etc, they are making a direct attack on you (whether they mean it as such or not), so I would expect people to respond in kind. Same with pretty much any contentious thread, which encompasses a whole lot of the religion and spirituality forum.
There are only a few posters on here that I would say are "unstable", and none of them are the atheists or normal religious folks. They are the fringe people...
Like you, I've lost a lot of my love for America - not just because they voted for Trump - but because, after two years, they still support him and worship him like a God. Because stupid is as stupid does. America has one of the least educated populations in the industrialized world - all they care about is knowing enough to do their job correctly and everything else is worthless knowledge.
Having said that, however, Hillary Clinton won the election by 3 million votes. The problem is that annoying Electoral College who wanted Trump as president regardless of what the people want. When a small, select group of elites can override the will of hundreds of millions of people, we don't have a true democracy.
If we did, Clinton would be the president right now, not a doddering moron who spends 6 hours per day watching Fox News and talking on a cellphone that both the Chinese and the Russians tapped and also listen to everything Trump says - all because he refused to use the special government phone. Because he was too lazy to enter all his contacts in his new phone. True story. Makes Hillary's BS email scandal seem tame by comparison.
But yes, having an ammoral criminal narcissist in office is rather disconcerting.
Actually, the Soviet Union lost 21,000,000 if you count civilians. Anyhow ...
Now - while I understand you want to diss America because we didn't come running to your rescue on September 2nd, 1939, that doesn't mean you can distort history in quite the way you have.
Understand this - World War II was nothing more than the culmination of 1600 years of constant European wars. You know - the War of the Roses, the 100 Years War, the Napoleonic era, etc. etc. If YOU were a nation on the other side of the "pond" who saw Britain as an enemy for the majority of the time your country existed - noting also that you had to fight a revolution to get out from under the rule of Britain's king - just how quick would you respond to Britain?
In between the wars, there was even the possibility of Britain and America going to war against each other, even before WWII began. America's and Britain's "special status" did not even begin until during the war. That alliance did not exist - at all - in September, 1939.
Not only that - even IF America had joined the war at the same time as Britain, you would have gotten ZERO help from America because we weren't ready for a war in any conceivable way. Our entire military - the ENTIRE military - had 250,000 men, ranked 16th in the world, the same size as Portugal and Chile.
Also, keep in mind how YOU would feel, being dragged into a world war that was none of your business. As far as Americans saw it, WWII was just another war that Europe started because it can't get along with itself - as I said, Europe has been fighting itself for almost two millennia - and my guess is that they would STILL be fighting if it hadn't been for the advent of the nuclear age where large scale fighting can no longer be done without a worldwide holocaust.
Like it or not, Americans at the time had a dim view of Britain and it's Empire. Just as the USA had to fight a revolution to get out from under Britain's heel, many Americans felt that other nations should do the same. We believed in self-determination for places like Egypt, India, Iraq, and other nations you kept a hold of as colonies.
The point is that America did not have a love affair with Britain in August of 1939 and saw no reason to get embroiled in yet ANOTHER European war. If we kept getting involved, then what, would America have to intervene a third time? A fourth? A fifth? If it hasn't ended in almost 2,000 years, why would we expect an end to all the fighting after WWII? As I said, if not for the two atomic weapons, you folks would STILL be at each others' throats. And in some ways, you still are. Look at Russia and the Ukraine. Look at the former Yugoslavia. Sure, the bad behavior moved a bit further east, but it's still there.
Also, as for the Russians are concerned. Yes, they won the war on the ground. But would they have if not for Lend-Lease? Would they have if 80% of the Luftwaffe hadn't been recalled from the Eastern Front to protect German cities from Allied bombing raids? Would they have if Hitler hadn't told Von Manstein to end the battle of Kursk so Hitler could pull a huge chunk of his forces out of Russia to defend against the Allied invasion of Sicily? Would they have if the Wehrmacht didn't have to hold back a crapton of divisions to fend off D-Day which they knew was coming? Would they have if they hadn't kept back 300,000 men in Norway just to hold the country?
Keep in mind, too, something Stalin had said. When they had one of their conferences, Churchill asked Stalin, "With all the advances the Red Army made, I bet you feel pretty good about yourself." Stalin responded with, "In the same amount of time, Czar Alexander was in England."
The point here is that Stalin had NO intentions of stopping at the German border. In fact, Patton had to divert north to keep Stalin out of Holland and Belgium or they too would have fallen behind the Iron Curtain. I can almost guarantee that if not for the presence of American forces, Stalin would of rolled right into Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal - and guess who would be next? Uh huh. Get the idea?
When Stalin declared war on Japan, the Red Army steam rolled into Asia - and even after the Japenese surrendered, Stalin kept fighting for another 10 days just to gobble up places like, eh, North Korea, North Vietnam, Manchuria, and then helped Mao turn China communist. America and China were staunch allies and then 5 years later we were fighting them. Why? Stalin. Period.
Why was there a Korean War? A Vietnam War? Stalin. Period.
And he would have done the *exact* same thing to Europe. So while your thanking your buddy Stalin for "winning" the war, you might want to think about what life would have been like living behind the Iron Curtain under the control of the Kremlin? I'd ask Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, and other nations that revolted against the communists within 5 years of the end of WWII - or why hundreds of thousands of East Germans defected to the West before the wall was built? It's not pleasant to be ruled by a tyrant.
Believe me, I'm not happy having a president who takes his marching orders from Putin - or having an electoral college that has a penchant for putting Republicans in office over the will of the people. Nor am I proud to have a president who lied or misled 147 times in a single two-hour speech. I am even less proud to be part of a nation who actually thinks this misogynist thug is worth the oxygen he consumes.
But ... being angry at America because we didn't rush to Britain's aid in September 1939 just shows that you don't have the greatest understanding of the time period. Plus, I would add, that I find it hypocritical that Amerca is accused all the time of being an "Imperialist" nation or a warmongering nation. Yet, even if that WERE true, Europe made us into what we are. Before WWII we just wanted to be left alone - but thanks to Europe and Asia going on a nationalistic warpath, we couldn't do that. The result was an America who became the world's policeman - a job we didn't ask for nor do we want. Despite our desires and our exceedingly massive defense budget that we have to spend protecting everyone else, if we packed up and became isolationist again, many places around the world would decend into chaos.
Just thought I'd put things into prospective. The things Arach said, well ... he's been poisoned by an improper definition of socialism. The old Cold Warriors from an earlier time probably don't even know the difference between socialism and communism - and think that, because socialism was mismanaged by a paranoid dictator, that's the only way socialism can run. Here in the USA, however, polling data shows that most Americans see socialism as "freedom for all," and "equality" and generally a good thing - despite what the old fogies think. I WISH America had Britain's health care system, for instance, instead of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to robber baron insurance companies just so they can deny your claim.
But I won't even get into how our health care resembles how health care was doled out in Auschwitz. Feel free to PM me or something since I'm sure someone is going to lean on the report button and silence me by crying, "This post is too political!"
Only reason why I posted this at all is because of some historical perspectives that I did not think was altogether fair. If you want to delete this, mods, fine - but at least give Rafius the chance to read it first. Cuz I like the guy and wouldn't want him walking around with a very spotty understanding of how things were. Thanks.
And no offense, Rafius.
There is one huge difference between god and trump. Trump actually exists.
That could be true, but does it also keep him from making sense? It is one thing to have something like "it doesnit mater" and another to have an incoherent or rambling sentence.... That being said, I won't comment on that part again.
However, I will continue to point out that if he is a liberal atheist, he certainly doesn't come off as one with his constant babbling about liberalism, socialism, and "anti-God". I mean, when is the last time you heard a conservative Christian constantly rambling about conservatism, religion, and "anti-atheists"???
Having worked with many dyslexic (and other similar conditions) kids from 13 years in the classroom and another 20 years in school administration, not to mention also working with a severely dyslexic vice-principal, one thing I would emphasize to such people is quality over quantity. Write less, and use the time saved in that way to making sure than a post has clarity...because clarity to the reader is the whole point of posting.
Having worked with many dyslexic (and other similar conditions) kids from 13 years in the classroom and another 20 years in school administration, not to mention also working with a severely dyslexic vice-principal, one thing I would emphasize to such people is quality over quantity. Write less, and use the time saved in that way to making sure than a post has clarity...because clarity to the reader is the whole point of posting.
I haven't worked with any dyslexics, but my husband is dyslexic, so I do have a somewhat working knowledge of it. I get that words can get scrambled, and perhaps stay that way, but I fail to see how leaving all the mistakes (with no effort at all to fix them) and not bothering to make a post readable is a good thing to do. So I agree. Quality is better than quantity.
There are too many political posts in this thread. The posts are coming too fast for me to go edit or delete them all, so what I will do is caution you all that this is not the Politics forum. If posts about politics continue, there will be no alternative to closing the thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
