We aren't losing our culture... :rolleyes: I for one speak Spanish and listen to some music in Spanish, am I any less American? Even if I am, who cares if some stores have signs in Spanish as well as English? Plenty of places even have signs in French.

Originally Posted by DarkFantasy96
Oh, and my mom, who is unarguably poor, makes Freethinker look like a Rightwinger.

Impossible.

You're probably correct, Prae.

If DarkFantasy's mom wants to see the Defense budget trimmed to 1/10th its current size, if she favors unilateral nuclear disarmament, if she supports the US pulling nearly all of its troops and military bases out of every part of the globe, if she would like to see roughly 75% of the curent reichwing cabal in Washington placed in prison and held to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity before an international tribunal, if she'd like to see Ward Churchill made Secretary of State and Noam Chomsky as president, if she wants to see our capitalist system converted to one of democratic socialism.......well, then she might have a shot.

Along the border with Canada there are signs in French. Quebec is the reason.

Ever really heard an intelligent sounding Spanish speaker? Think hard now...

Some build castles in the sky, others live in those castles. FT, which one are you?

Are you calling me unintelligent?

You're probably correct, Prae.

If DarkFantasy's mom wants to see the Defense budget trimmed to 1/10th its current size, if she favors unilateral nuclear disarmament, if she supports the US pulling nearly all of its troops and military bases out of every part of the globe, if she would like to see roughly 75% of the curent reichwing cabal in Washington placed in prison and held to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity before an international tribunal, if she'd like to see Ward Churchill made Secretary of State and Noam Chomsky as president, if she wants to see our capitalist system converted to one of democratic socialism.......well, then she might have a shot.

Yep, that sounds like her... Except I think she wants Michael Moore to be President....

Are you calling me unintelligent?

Not in the least. The question asked has yet to be answered.

So, wait, you think Spanish speakers are unintelligent? I just want to be clear.

Ever really heard an intelligent sounding Spanish speaker? Think hard now...

That's a very clear question.

My god, that's insanely racist. How many Spanish speakers have you known? I've known many, and they aren't any less intelligent than white people.

if she favors unilateral nuclear disarmament
You're out of your fucking gourd, Cabbage Patch.

You seem to think that US disarmament will solve the world's woes. Why?

Ever really heard an intelligent sounding Spanish speaker? Think hard now...
One of my parent's friends is from Ecuador. Has a million dollar home and sends his kids to an expensive private school. Is he a genius? No. But you certainly don't attain that status by being a blundering idiot.

Not what I expected from you Evak... Thanks for backing me up.

My god, that's insanely racist. How many Spanish speakers have you known? I've known many, and they aren't any less intelligent than white people.

Being awfully defensive, aren't you? I've lost count of how many folks I have encountered over the years that speak that language. It's the language, not the individual.

What do you mean, "it's the language, not the individual"?

Ever really heard an intelligent sounding Spanish speaker? Think hard now...
My Differential Equations professor next semester is a man named Jesus Miranda. He has a doctorate from IIT. I have not yet heard him speak, but I have a friend in Calc II with him, and he says that Dr. Miranda seems very intelligent. And he is a native speaker of Spanish. With a doctorate. Teaching higher-level math.

One of my parent's friends is from Ecuador. Has a million dollar home and sends his kids to an expensive private school. Is he a genius? No. But you certainly don't attain that status by being a blundering idiot.He no doubt speaks Ecuadorian.

What do you mean, "it's the language, not the individual"?
Yeah...I think you've taken your "realist" comment in your sig too far.

Well gee Darth, you sure know how to patronize people.
All of these military actions (except perhaps Somalia) were for your own advantage - political or economical. Not humanitarian.

As is often the case, our little military expeditions do serve dual purposes both our own self interest and for the interests of the people we came to liberate. Panama, Grenada, Taiwan and Kuwait come to mind. Besides, if you wish to advance the idea of the U.S. takes actions strictly for their own self interest, you'll have one hell of a time explaining Kosovo, dammit.

The "euroweenies" as you so colorfully put it, has in general terms the same agenda as the US. No interest in Dafur, therefore no military intervention.

No, what I'm bitching about is that the Euroweenies don't take any military action at all, they just negotiate. That air raid Reagan did with Lybia back in '85 or '86 serves as a prime example, here's was a man, Kadafi, who was exporting terrorism, killing people and causing a ruckus. Reagan decided to let him know that his actions weren't going to be tolerated and sent a flight of FB-111s to level a few terrorist camps and one of Kadafis palaces. Not wishing to anger the terrorists, the Euroweenies would not allow the fighter-bombers to fly over their countries and the FB-111s had to fly over the Atlantic and Mediteranean to get at Lybia. My complaint is that the Eurweenies just won't take action against those who might hit back, whether or not it's in their own self interest, dammit.

Now, your reply was really just a long speech of the US pulling the load, and of why the cowards(?) on the side doesn't help. I humored you by replying, but this was still way off my point, which I shall repeat: no western (US with reps/dems or european) armed intervention in Dafur, because of lack of interests there. Period.

Well gee, Elp, you went and made the charge of why wasn't the U.S. not doing anything about that region of the Sudan, I'm saying well where the hell are the Euroweenies if they are so concerned and they are, just not enough to go and do something about it, whether or not it IS in their own national interest, dammit.

And what you think doesn't really matter, because even though there were troops freed up, the US would never intervene in Dafur, for reasons I already stated.

Traditionally, the U.S. doesn't launch an Iraq War II type invasion over problems like is going on in Darfur, but we've been known to support those who are fighting against such oppression. If the U.S. wasn't so war-weary over the Iraq thing, or if Iraq went well, in all likelihood you'd be eating your words, and the U.S. would face charges of solving problems unilaterally or something. Dammit.

Iraq is indeed the central front on the so-called "war on terror" can be debated, but one thing is certain: you created this hellish situation all by yourselves - well done.

Yeah, we "created" this problem by going into Iraq and ousting a horrible dictator and trying to give the people of Iraq a chance at a better life. The U.S. has tried, the U.S. has acted decisvely, which says a hell of a lot more than certain Euroweenie countries that merely used the Oil For Food program as a cash cow for kickbacks and sweetheart oil deals from Saddam while his people were being butchered.

Dammit.

Some build castles in the sky, others live in those castles. FT, which one are you?

You present a limited (and fantasy based) dichotomy.

I neither build castles nor live in them.

My Differential Equations professor next semester is a man named Jesus Miranda. He has a doctorate from IIT. I have not yet heard him speak, but I have a friend in Calc II with him, and he says that Dr. Miranda seems very intelligent. And he is a native speaker of Spanish. With a doctorate. Teaching higher-level math.

You have needlessly gone to great lengths to refute a question that was nonsensical (not to mention racist) to begin with.

There is nothing to support that the speakers of any one language are more or less intelligent than the speakers of another language.

I don't think he went to great lengths for that, but you're right about the racist, nonsensical question.

I don't think he went to great lengths for that, but you're right about the racist, nonsensical question.

Ok.

Substitute the words **a lengthy explanation** for the words "great lengths".

As is often the case, our little military expeditions do serve dual purposes both our own self interest and for the interests of the people we came to liberate. Panama, Grenada, Taiwan and Kuwait come to mind. Besides, if you wish to advance the idea of the U.S. takes actions strictly for their own self interest, you'll have one hell of a time explaining Kosovo, dammit.


Hmm lets see.... security in Europe for economic reasons would be a pretty good explanation. Trying to make up for the PR lost to the ineptitude in Bosnia a few years earlier would be another one.


My complaint is that the Eurweenies just won't take action against those who might hit back, whether or not it's in their own self interest, dammit.


I don't think that's true. We haven't really had a situation yet where Europe has been in a position where it had to strike military, but there are plenty of peacekeeping operations. And what of the european soldiers standing side by side in Iraq and Afghanistan with US soldiers? Don't they target their countries for terr-uh-rists?



Well gee, Elp, you went and made the charge of why wasn't the U.S. not doing anything about that region of the Sudan, I'm saying well where the hell are the Euroweenies if they are so concerned and they are, just not enough to go and do something about it, whether or not it IS in their own national interest, dammit.


I didn't make a charge. I made a rhetorical argument, stating the ease that the US would have in dealing with Dafur, but it wouldn't be done. I also stated that the "euroweenies" doesn't care. My point remains.



Traditionally, the U.S. doesn't launch an Iraq War II type invasion over problems like is going on in Darfur, but we've been known to support those who are fighting against such oppression. If the U.S. wasn't so war-weary over the Iraq thing, or if Iraq went well, in all likelihood you'd be eating your words, and the U.S. would face charges of solving problems unilaterally or something. Dammit.


I think not. I think that the US wouldn't give a damn about Dafur, even if they weren't engaged in multiple wars. Lets see now, what did the US do in Rwanda?



Yeah, we "created" this problem by going into Iraq and ousting a horrible dictator and trying to give the people of Iraq a chance at a better life. The U.S. has tried, the U.S. has acted decisvely, which says a hell of a lot more than certain Euroweenie countries that merely used the Oil For Food program as a cash cow for kickbacks and sweetheart oil deals from Saddam while his people were being butchered.

Dammit.

Come now, you don't really think that was the reason the Iraq war was started? Countries are more cynical than you imagine in your idealistic fantasies. And you didn't create the problem by invading Iraq, you created it by being totally incompetent in post-war planning!

To clarify my earlier post:

The intelligence of the speaker is not being brought into question.

Spanish is not a particularly smooth-sounding language, one that lends itself to cerebral discourse. Similarly, German is a very gutteral language when spoken, and doesn't lend itself to romantic murmurings and gentle phrases of love and tenderness.

And French is for love making and Italian is for argueing in................

To clarify my earlier post:

The intelligence of the speaker is not being brought into question.

Spanish is not a particularly smooth-sounding language, one that lends itself to cerebral discourse. Similarly, German is a very gutteral language when spoken, and doesn't lend itself to romantic murmurings and gentle phrases of love and tenderness.



I think Romance languages sound cleaner and smoother than Germanic languages.

Romance languages tie together the spelling and pronuncination in a fashion that is more intuitve, stable and predictable. IOW: fewer surprises and deviations from the rules set.

Very true. In Spanish, if you know how to spell a word, you know how to pronounce it, and if you know how to pronounce a word, you know how to spell it.

Spanish is not a particularly smooth-sounding language, one that lends itself to cerebral discourse. You are totally full of mierda on this one, amigo.

Very true. In Spanish, if you know how to spell a word, you know how to pronounce it, and if you know how to pronounce a word, you know how to spell it.

That's a good way to put it ... and it's the reason I have no sympathy for those that complain about Spanish being spoken in this country yet refuse to learn the language when it is so easy.

They don't have to learn it. My problem is with the people who act like they're being forced to learn Spanish. :rolleyes:

Romance languages tie together the spelling and pronuncination in a fashion that is more intuitve, stable and predictable. IOW: fewer surprises and deviations from the rules set.

Actually that is not true. Germanic languages tie together spelling and pronunciation in a fashion that is more intuitive, stale and predictable.

There are no silent letters in German and every word is pronounced as it is spelled. Also, the rules of grammar are fairly straigh forward. German is probably one of the easies languages for an English speaker to learn.

Actually that is not true. Germanic languages tie together spelling and pronunciation in a fashion that is more intuitive, stale and predictable.

There are no silent letters in German and every word is pronounced as it is spelled. Also, the rules of grammar are fairly straigh forward. German is probably one of the easies languages for an English speaker to learn.

Without even straining my brain I can come up with a silent letter in the word fahrt pronounced fart. You will find it in the 1st chapter of Till Eulenspiegel und Munchausen ... which was mandatory reading in my 10th grade german class.

Endlich habe ich eine rheinfahrt gemacht ...

Well, what I said about Spanish earlier is most definitely not true for English.

Without even straining my brain I can come up with a silent letter in the word fahrt pronounced fart. You will find it in the 1st chapter of Till Eulenspiegel und Munchausen ... which was mandatory reading in my 10th grade german class.
The H has an effect on the sound.

That's a good way to put it ... and it's the reason I have no sympathy for those that complain about Spanish being spoken in this country yet refuse to learn the language when it is so easy.
I won't learn that language because A) I don't want to. B) I want to encourage immigrants here to speak English. And C) I think Spanish sounds terrible.

I don't think Spanish sounds terrible at all... Well, actually, it depends what country the speaker is from.

I won't learn that language because A) I don't want to. B) I want to encourage immigrants here to speak English. And C) I think Spanish sounds terrible.

My sentiments exactly.

My point is that you don't have to learn it. I'm tired of everyone acting like "OH NOES SOME STORES HAVE SIGNS IN SPANISH, NOW I HAVE TO LEARN SPANISH AND STOP BEING AN AMERICAN!!" Wtf is with that??

My point is that you don't have to learn it. I'm tired of everyone acting like "OH NOES SOME STORES HAVE SIGNS IN SPANISH, NOW I HAVE TO LEARN SPANISH AND STOP BEING AN AMERICAN!!" Wtf is with that??
No one said we had to learn Spanish, Dop didn't say it, neither did ES.

By "everyone" I didn't mean everyone here; I didn't even mean anyone here.

Well, what I said about Spanish earlier is most definitely not true for English.

My Hispanic friends tell me learning engish is quite difficult for them. Of course, mileage will vary between individuals.

The H has an effect on the sound.

Let's hear you pronounce it.

It's getting to the point, at least in California and the southwest, that you have to have Spanish as a 2nd language to get a job with the police, fire, health care, government jobs and more and more each day we're seeing stores like Target, Wal-Mart etc etc with dual language requirements.

Like it or not ... 10 years from now (or maybe 20) (or maybe sooner) the U.S. will be a 2-language country ... possibly 3 languages.

It's not like that's some radical idea either. Children in many, many countries are taught two languages from the time they begin school. When I lived in Costa Rica, my best friend's neighbors were a family in which the father was Israeli and the mother was French. The two children (ages about 8 and 6) were born in Costa Rica and spoke: French, English, Hebrew, and Spanish, although they spoke mostly Spanish with their friends and at school, and mostly English to their parents.

Let's hear you pronounce it.
Well, gee...call me up and I can give you a lesson in German.

Well, gee...call me up and I can give you a lesson in German.

Why should I have all the fun.

Click on voice recorder and make a midi file, place it on the web and we can all join in the festivities. Or make a MP3, WMA, Ogg Vorbis ... whatever.

I'm too lazy to exert effort.

I'm too lazy to exert effort.

Not according to your avatar. :D

Not according to your avatar. :D
I get worn out from doing pelvic thrusts all day.

Looks like the troops aren't digging it anymore ...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070101/cooperweb

Had the U.S. military engaged the Russians at that time, there would have been little contest.True. The Red Army in 1945 would have made hash of the Americans.

I get worn out from doing pelvic thrusts all day.

LMAO

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

Now all you have to do is find a girl do you don't have to air fuck, Evakian.:banana:

True. The Red Army in 1945 would have made hash of the Americans.
Yes. But you forget that we had the capacity to create the bomb.

I've always heard the argument that: "Well, gee...those Reds would have cut us to ribbons!" Completely disregarding the fact that we dropped bombs on Japan and had the ability to churn more out.

Now all you have to do is find a girl do you don't have to air fuck, Evakian.:banana:
I'm saving myself for Scarlett Johannson. *runs away crying*

Yes. But you forget that we had the capacity to create the bomb.Dang. How could I have let that slip my mind? :rolleyes: I've always heard the argument that: "Well, gee...those Reds would have cut us to ribbons!" Completely disregarding the fact that we dropped bombs on Japan and had the ability to churn more out.The atom bombs were great for destroying cities but would have been of limited use on a battlefield -- drop one too close to the front and you'll kill nearly as many of your own troops as the enemy. A few well placed bombs (and a few was all we had) would of course wreak havoc on supply lines but the Russians had been improvising supply routes all the way across Eastern Europe anyway. And massive Russian casualties wouldn't have fazed them much either. The American public, on the other hand, wanted nothing more than a quick end to the war and would have chafed (to put it mildly) at the prospect of needlessly prolonging the conflict at the expense of an erstwhile ally. Indeed, Washington was counting on Soviet help to end the war with Japan at the time. Turning on the Russians would have been a diplomatic, political and military disaster without equal in all of history.

Dang. How could I have let that slip my mind? :rolleyes:
Try discussing something with sedan and you get snide, sarcastic remarks. How fun.
Turning on the Russians would have been a diplomatic, political and military disaster without equal in all of history.
Yes it would have been, but I disagree with the idea that the USSR would have sent us back home canned and wrapped. Regardless of public sentiment, loss of life, or Soviet resolve, the USA had the capacity to win a war with the USSR, even back then.

... the USA had the capacity to win a war with the USSR, even back then.

Can you build a case for that or is it just your opinion?

Can you build a case for that or is it just your opinion?
I'm just screwing with sedan. The Soviets had the capacity to kick us out of Europe, and would likely not shudder at their losses.

I'm just screwing with sedan. The Soviets had the capacity to kick us out of Europe, and would likely not shudder at their losses.


I disagree. We had Patton.
Also pulling troops from the Pacific Theater after the Japanese defeat would have greatly shored up our numbers in terms of troop strength.
Not to mention our Navy, combined with Britain's, would have shifted the balance in our favor.

I disagree. We had Patton.
A great tactician, but not everyone saw eye-to-eye with him. The American people would likely not be willing to go on his brutal crusade into Red territory.
Also pulling troops from the Pacific Theater after the Japanese defeat would have greatly shored up our numbers in terms of troop strength.
They could easily supply more troops for themselves as well.
Not to mention our Navy, combined with Britain's, would have shifted the balance in our favor.
Was Britain's navy a marvel in 1945? Doubtful.

We either overestimate Soviet resolve, or underestimate. The former kept us out of war, and if the latter was true, then keeping out of conflict was a better path.

I believe that if America went to war with the USSR at that time, we might have won. But, our losses and changes in the process of attaining victory would be terrific. Would the Soviets have prostrated themselves before us if we used the bomb? Would we be able to fight a successful ground war against them? Would the world be the same, or even better from this? How would this effect our own status at home? These questions can't be answered, and if they were, we might not like the answers.

That's true, and we'll never know...but if it had come to that--that is, the USSR becoming very aggressive right after the War--I think you are underestimating the industrial might of the US.

Most of Europe after the War was a bombed out wreck, as was the USSR.
They were also using our weapons which we'd "lent" to them.

No doubt tho, it would've been an incredible bloodbath on both sides ( and I suppose this speculation belongs in the History forum.:))

I'm saving myself for Scarlett Johannson. *runs away crying*
Bu...bu...but that's a woman??? :confused:

not bad either.