Does SUNNY WINTERS make you hate black ppl just a little bit more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visions Unseen

In the long run the US is bent on world domination. If you're not in our pocket you will be rolled up on in one form or another. And really, its not conspiracy, its policy.

---

I think you make sense up to a point then you go off into that territory that almost strips you of your credibility.

But to take a bage out of your book....define 'world domination'. What do you mean by that?
Its easy to say, 'Oh the SOviets just want to take over the world' and such. YOu seem preoccupied with jsut AMerican foreign policy and the con stance.
Maybe you should look at both sides instead of just assuming that just because the US has military operations inside of a country, that it makes the invaded country inherently righteous.

I dunno man....you just lose me when it comes to foreign policy because you infuse too much humanism and idealism into it.

ANy leader that has done that has failed. Even American ones. See Wilson and W. Whatever their ideals may have been to you, it real hasn't proven to be effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STYLE

i read these accusations about sunny and smile because i know that you couldn't find a post of his to back them up.
The beef i had with sunny was the circular questions.but now i understand the technique.

Its rare for sunny to make flat out statements presented as fact.
That's what the threadstarter does. Sunny asks questions. Questions that make you and cool dan feel insulted.

Twisting truths baseless accusations far out mentality... all in your head.

---

Sunny has a hidden agenda. He's slick to the people who don't know the game his is running. He might be alright, but again, his affiliation and extreme adherence to his group outs him immediately.
Just like most of them, he has the basis for a good arguement, but strays into that extreme area that, as i've described of others, strips him of his credibility.

But thats just my opinion.

Dan how did i manipulate your words? That's a fabrication you needed to create to justify your stance. The fact is that you spent a page pointing out what others do to lessen the impact of what we do.

All the other chirping you are doing is irrelevant my fine feathered friend.

Its always "its not good or bad or perfect but its good enough for me" with you.


Iraq was my example of
How" imperfect policy" as
you call it has grave consequences.

Policy that was opposed by the policy making public.

Please don't turn my love into something ugly. You of all people should understand its toughness.

Love,
Your lady in waiting,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STYLE

Dan how did i manipulate your words? That's a fabrication you needed to create to justify your stance. The fact is that you spent a page pointing out what others do to lessen the impact of what we do.

All the other chirping you are doing is irrelevant my fine feathered friend.

Its always "its not good or bad or perfect but its good enough for me" with you.


Iraq was my example of
How" imperfect policy" as
you call it has grave consequences.

Policy that was opposed by the policy making public.

Please don't turn my love into something ugly. You of all people should understand its toughness.

Love,
Your lady in waiting,

---

The discussion implied that America was doing something that had never been done before, that the USA was uniquely evil in its policies.

I never JUSTIFIED any policies that I deem unfair.

I see nothing wrong with questioning policy, as long as it is proactive and done in the proper framework.

Context is important.

You used your post to imply that I support the war in Iraq. You take my lack of blind hate as blind acceptance, when that is not the case.

But is this really about my moderate politics, Gavin, or is there something deeper? Something personal?

Only through truth can understanding be achieved.

Quote:

---

I think you make sense up to a point then you go off into that territory that almost strips you of your credibility.

But to take a bage out of your book....define 'world domination'. What do you mean by that?
Its easy to say, 'Oh the SOviets just want to take over the world' and such. YOu seem preoccupied with jsut AMerican foreign policy and the con stance.
Maybe you should look at both sides instead of just assuming that just because the US has military operations inside of a country, that it makes the invaded country inherently righteous.

I dunno man....you just lose me when it comes to foreign policy because you infuse too much humanism and idealism into it.

ANy leader that has done that has failed. Even American ones. See Wilson and W. Whatever their ideals may have been to you, it real hasn't proven to be effective.

---

I've pointed to examples as to why I feel this way, really it's just me interpreting what's already happened. Typically, a certain and pre-determined faction is given the ammunition and power to overthrow their country headed by a puppet of our choosing. Usually these guys will run things up until the point that they think they actually run shit and go rougue at which point our puppets are made the bad guy in the national media and the grounds for an intervention on one level or another.

Panama, Iraq, the Dominican Republic, Italy, all examples.

Manuel Noriega, Sadaam Hussein, Trujillo, Mussolini all individual leaders that received major US backing at one point or another and there are many others. The ultimate goal (and my definition for our world domination) is to place its economy as the central crux for all financial markets on a global scale and to force all nations on earth to have policies in place that are to our own benefit regardless of their own self-interest.

And as I said before its not conspiracy, its just US policy. Everything I'm saying you don't have to take my word for it, you can just research it. The history of this stuff is out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visions Unseen

I've pointed to examples as to why I feel this way, really it's just me interpreting what's already happened. Typically, a certain and pre-determined faction is given the ammunition and power to overthrow their country headed by a puppet of our choosing. Usually these guys will run things up until the point that they think they actually run shit and go rougue at which point our puppets are made the bad guy in the national media and the grounds for an intervention on one level or another.

Panama, Iraq, the Dominican Republic, Italy, all examples.

Manuel Noriega, Sadaam Hussein, Trujillo, Mussolini all individual leaders that received major US backing at one point or another and there are many others. The ultimate goal (and my definition for our world domination) is to place its economy as the central crux for all financial markets on a global scale and to force all nations on earth to have policies in place that are to our own benefit regardless of their own self-interest.

And as I said before its not conspiracy, its just US policy. Everything I'm saying you don't have to take my word for it, you can just research it. The history of this stuff is out there.

---

Yes, but what I'm saying is that, its not 'US' policy really. Its the result of West vs. East in Europe.

Mussolini got backing from the West and from conservative because everyone feared the communists.

Same thing in Germany, when the communists tried to take over after WWI.


I see the point you've been making this whole time, even if interpretations lead to disagreement.
But the thing that I point out is that, the alternative to what the US and the other Western countries combat over the world for is not much better. In fact, in my opinion, its much worse, because its more extreme.

But, your right, setting up puppet regimes just to keep communists at bay is not the solution. Its self-serving. But most foreign policy is....no check that. ALL foreign policy is.

Fascism and Communism are side by side on the circle of te political spectrum.

You can choose to view it any way you want.

But yes, meddling in the affairs of other countries....its highly unfair and it stunts the growth of countries and seriously damages them...much like a kid with a fucked up childhood.

THe world domination thing.....I think the US has realized not only in Vietnam but also in Iraq the limits of their power. Iraq is basically Vietnam Lite.

Now truthfully, if we wanted to dedicate a whole lot more time and money to either place, we probably could have been successful.
But the American people and the cost of doing that just won't have it and in the end its just not worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironman

I'm definitely feeling the self-hate in this thread.}:|

"Damn! I wish I wasn't black"-by a random self-hating African-American male

---

AHAHAHahahAAHAAHAahhaA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prince Rai

why does TSA have to make everything public?

I mean if he can just whisper everything he posts online it would be a lot better. Instead he's hear talking on a forum out loud and to everyone. It's like he doesn't have an indoor voice online

---

weren't you the fag that said you were indian for no good reason then ended up not being indian at all? that was so stupid dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat Bateman

Disillusions of sense.

---

I know what you mean about the bitterness lol.
he's just really really bitter now, obviously in real life.
he's had a lot of things fail in the past few years telling from undeniable fact and his own words like his marriage, his business(essessess), his fatherhood, his fight with drugs like PCP, his internet status and reputation, his internet business (TELL me the isn't gonna fail), his relationship with his parents, and his rivalry with the intern2tz very own Tee Es Aye.

I just wish he would move on and stop linking his emotional well being to the internet.




that said, Sunny winters makes me hate black ppl just a little bit more.
i also just watched State Property.

lol....thats the first time I laughed at daryl insulting style about a PCP habit. I've read the insult several times before, but this one really was good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NickyTooch

Yes, but what I'm saying is that, its not 'US' policy really. Its the result of West vs. East in Europe.

Mussolini got backing from the West and from conservative because everyone feared the communists.

Same thing in Germany, when the communists tried to take over after WWI.


I see the point you've been making this whole time, even if interpretations lead to disagreement.
But the thing that I point out is that, the alternative to what the US and the other Western countries combat over the world for is not much better. In fact, in my opinion, its much worse, because its more extreme.

But, your right, setting up puppet regimes just to keep communists at bay is not the solution. Its self-serving. But most foreign policy is....no check that. ALL foreign policy is.

Fascism and Communism are side by side on the circle of te political spectrum.

You can choose to view it any way you want.

But yes, meddling in the affairs of other countries....its highly unfair and it stunts the growth of countries and seriously damages them...much like a kid with a fucked up childhood.

THe world domination thing.....I think the US has realized not only in Vietnam but also in Iraq the limits of their power. Iraq is basically Vietnam Lite.

Now truthfully, if we wanted to dedicate a whole lot more time and money to either place, we probably could have been successful.
But the American people and the cost of doing that just won't have it and in the end its just not worth it.

---

its not soley an East vs West thing though. We were in the Dominican Republic to maintain control over the Panama Canal. We wanted that control over European competitors.

And while I have my own feelings regarding US involvement I'm not going to beat anyone over the head with them here, merely just bring to light the fact they happened. Removing judgement, I think the US should just be honest about its action with its people. I think an informed citizenry is ultimately what's best for america as a whole, afterall you can't make an informed decision if you are infact uninformed (to no one in particular).

As far as learning our lesson, I think its hard to make it an argument that policy has really changed. We still expect countries to bend to our will, we may be more diplomatic and smarter about it but it's still an underlying theme. I don't expect that to change anytime soon for better or worse and who's to say that the world isn't better for it in the long run. I don't have an answer for that one.

Panama canal....suez canal.

U make good points. The US really got into the game after the spanish-american war.

It was inevitable tho Eric.

A country with that much power and potential whose neighbors are much weaker in comparison wanting to keep other European powers with more prestige (at the time) out of its 'sphere of influence'.

It goes hand in hand. Its what empires do, even tho, AMerica has never technically been an empire.

Japan was hip and they even got in on the action.


That was really, (im talking the 19th and early 20th centuries) an interesting time in modern history.
Namely because it was the era immediately before mechanization and modern life as we know it.
Alot of old school mentality's about the world and about people in general. Just study the way the Europeans marched their own into certain death during WWI.

I think that needs to be taken into account. You can't look at everything from you current mindset because it did not exist back then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NickyTooch

Panama canal....suez canal.

U make good points. The US really got into the game after the spanish-american war.

It was inevitable tho Eric.

A country with that much power and potential whose neighbors are much weaker in comparison wanting to keep other European powers with more prestige (at the time) out of its 'sphere of influence'.

It goes hand in hand. Its what empires do, even tho, AMerica has never technically been an empire.

Japan was hip and they even got in on the action.


That was really, (im talking the 19th and early 20th centuries) an interesting time in modern history.
Namely because it was the era immediately before mechanization and modern life as we know it.
Alot of old school mentality's about the world and about people in general. Just study the way the Europeans marched their own into certain death during WWI.

I think that needs to be taken into account. You can't look at everything from you current mindset because it did not exist back then.

---

Mentalities change but expansion has always been a part of US policy. I'm not saying we're historically any better or worse than past empires with great power.

Citizens have to live up to there own potential as well in changing any policy they disagree with but I do believe that the powers that be don't have a vested interest in an informed and politically active citizenship, which is exactly why you don't have one.

The conundrum we'll find ourselves in is that its getting harder and harder to compete on a global scale with an uninformed workforce. At some point the system is going to have to man-up and own up to their own actions. There is hope in that Obama is the kind of politician that could lead things in that direction. Only time will tell.

bump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

lol, he does for me, and im black.
so i imagine it must me severe for other races.

---

because your mind isnt even open
as seen with your posts