You Won't Find This On The New!

MSALLA

TroyD wrote:

What we AREN'T hearing is the things we are doing to help the general Iraqi population. Rebuilding infrastructure, opening schools....rebuilding the economy...all things we DIDN'T destroy but we are fixing/rebuilding. All things that are demonstrably better than they were while Saddam was in power.



BDT

Everytime these things are brought up, some jackass states that "we should be spending that money making our own schools, etc,etc, better" I will say this. This country is like a bunch of spoiled kids (myself included). We sit around bitching about alot of problems that we created ourselves. These people saying our schools are no good should walk through some "bad" schools. I have done work at some of them and these kids act like animals. No one is forceing them to act like that.

bikezappa

I would like to hear from some of the American people living, working and fighting in Iraq directly. I would value their observations, opinions and insights greatly. I don't care if they are republicans or democrats, liberal or conservative, white or black.......whatever.

Any advice on where to get this information?

Systems

ohskigod wrote:

same sort of sick **** that wants to kill us, little girls included.

said it before, and will say it again, so many people underestimate the evil were dealing with here. Believe me, I'm not the most overly religious guy on the planet (not even close ), but I know evil exists, and radical islam epitomizes it to the core.

(by the way, this is a general statement, not any kind of dig GV, please dont take it as such)

No offense taken,I'm 100 % in agreement with your statement about the radical Islamists.

Unfortunately I cannot see how your guys can possibly bring about a lasting peace for them when they (Sunnis and Shiates)are so eager just to kill and mame each other (women and children included) on the streets and attack those who are there to help them.

pacificoastbear

The photo is excellent. The human element is an underreported aspect of our war. But it isn't consolatory to our Imperialistic actions in the Middle East.

hearingimpared

pacificoastbear wrote:

The photo is excellent. The human element is an underreported aspect of our war. But it isn't consolatory to our Imperialistic actions in the Middle East.

Imperialistic your ****!

TroyD

pacificoastbear wrote:

The photo is excellent. The human element is an underreported aspect of our war. But it isn't consolatory to our Imperialistic actions in the Middle East.

Oh, I'd almost love to hear an explanation of THAT one.

Even if you don't agree with the war, that particular pantload doesn't hold water.

BDT

hearingimpared

TroyD wrote:

Oh, I'd almost love to hear an explanation of THAT one.

Even if you don't agree with the war, that particular pantload doesn't hold water.

BDT

Yeah Troy, that idiotic, smacked **** . . .LOL I don't need to go any further.

tonyb

TroyD wrote:

Oh, I'd almost love to hear an explanation of THAT one.

Even if you don't agree with the war, that particular pantload doesn't hold water.

BDT

Waiting for one myself....never heard such a crock of **** !!

PolkWannabie

pacificoastbear wrote:

But it isn't consolatory to our Imperialistic actions in the Middle East.

Get a clue ... If the US was at all interested in imperialism we'd be holding a lot more real estate then we do ...

bikezappa

There appear to be many definitions of imperialism.

You be the judge.

The practice of one country extending its control over the territory, political system, or economic life of another country. Political opposition to this foreign domination is called "anti-imperialism."
www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html

the policy of imposing the rule or command of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of obtaining and occupying colonies and dependencies. American imperialism came of age during London's lifetime, beginning with Cuba and the Phillipines, and he supported this foreign policy.
sunsite.berkeley.edu/London/Essays/glossary.html

Belief in the desirability of acquiring colonies and dependencies or extending a country's influence though means such as trade, diplomacy, military conquest
john.curtin.edu.au/society/glossary/

a national policy of forming and maintaining an empire; it involves the struggle for the control of raw materials and world markets, the subjection and control of territories, and the establishment of colonies.
www.summit.org/resource/dictionary/

economic control gained through the corporate organization of nation states.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

The highest, and last, stage of capitalism. As defined by Lenin, imperialism is the merging of bank capital with industrial capital to create finance capital; industry is increasingly dominated by monopolies; the export of capital becomes more important than the export of commodities; super-profits are obtained by imperialist super-exploitation of the less developed countries.
www.workers.org/marcy/perestroika/glossary.html

a policy in which stronger nations attempt to create empires by dominating weaker nations economically, politically, or militarily; also called expansionism
www.doe.nv.gov/standards/standss/history-standards/histgloss.html

Intentional policy on the part of a nation-state of extending its power and dominion over other nations and peoples, especially by direct territorial acquisition or through the exercise of political or economic hegemony.
www.ripon.edu/academics/global/CONCEPTS.HTML

a relationship of political, and/or economic, and/or cultural domination and subordination between geographical areas.
media.pearsoncmg.com/intl/ema/uk/0131217666/student/0131217666_glo.html

the permanent annexation by a state of territory and its population in a remote part of the world by a state to form part of an empire.
www.naiadonline.ca/book/01Glossary.htm

a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries
a political orientation that advocates imperial interests
any instance of aggressive extension of authority
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Imperialism is a policy of extending the control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries.The term is used by some to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

pacificoastbear

PolkWannabie wrote:

Get a clue ... If the US was at all interested in imperialism we'd be holding a lot more real estate then we do ...

Perhaps a simple glance about the world and you'll reconsider your statement. Please provide a country who has less "real estate" in terms of embodiment in domestic interests abroad, military holdings or otherwise, in the last 40 years.

The US has redefined and expanded the classical techniques of interventionalism. Then walk back down the path of imperialism and explain your view of the US as not falling into the definition.

The United States in all of her glory is no different than Great Britain was from the early 1800s through about 1950. We expropriate surplus from LDCs around the world via market exchange, if a country isn't performing appropriately the recommendations of the Washington Consensus are introduced and if that isn't working we resort to other methods of sanctioning or flexing our military power.

The US isn't exempt from the truth, it just typically isn't considered.

F1nut

pacificoastbear wrote:

Perhaps a simple glance about the world and you'll reconsider your statement. Please provide a country who has less "real estate" in terms of embodiment in domestic interests abroad, military holdings or otherwise, in the last 40 years.

The US has redefined and expanded the classical techniques of interventionalism. Then walk back down the path of imperialism and explain your view of the US as not falling into the definition.

The United States in all of her glory is no different than Great Britain was from the early 1800s through about 1950. We expropriate surplus from LDCs around the world via market exchange, if a country isn't performing appropriately the recommendations of the Washington Consensus are introduced and if that isn't working we resort to other methods of sanctioning or flexing our military power.

The US isn't exempt from the truth, it just typically isn't considered.

Now that we all know what kind of person you are, please feel free to go back to the delusional hole you crawled out of.

mikesd

F1nut wrote:

Now that we all know what kind of person you are, please feel free to go back to the delusional hole you crawled out of.

Even though I may or may not agree with your opinions (doesn't really matter does it) I think I will go ahead and crawl back into the hole from which I came from now before I have a difference of opinion with a veteran member of this fine forum. Everyone enjoy your Superiority over the newer members, I just do not have the time to stay and enjoy it with you.

pacificoastbear

F1nut wrote:

Now that we all know what kind of person you are, please feel free to go back to the delusional hole you crawled out of.

Such hostility F1nut. What type of person am I exactly, other than one apparently who lives in a delusional hole? Clearly you think I am incorrect, yet you can offer nothing to countersway the facts. I'll refrain from dropping you into a particular stereotype passed on your earlier statement but what harm will come of you if you actually considered something beyond a blind nationalism.

hearingimpared

pacificoastbear wrote:

Such hostility F1nut. What type of person am I exactly, other than one apparently who lives in a delusional hole? Clearly you think I am incorrect, yet you can offer nothing to countersway the facts. I'll refrain from dropping you into a particular stereotype passed on your earlier statement but what harm will come of you if you actually considered something beyond a blind nationalism.

Welcome to Club Polk, you and your useless 31 posts. We don't need to "offer [anthing] to countersway the facts," we just let you keep writing and we keep laughing. Nothing is going to countersway your pinkish red ****. Why don't you join your friend in Iran who keeps spouting the same horsepooop that you do. Just make sure you grow a beard and wear a coofee (sp) or else you'll be beheaded.

read-alot

"what harm will come of you if you actually considered something beyond a blind nationalism"

And where were you when the world stopped turning on a cold September
day?

Get back in your hole.

hearingimpared

bikezappa wrote:

There appear to be many definitions of imperialism.

Glad that you listed the references because at a quick glance you can see they are communist's definitions or in the case of berkley shapd their definitions to cast the USA as imperialistic.

TroyD

pacificoastbear wrote:

Perhaps a simple glance about the world and you'll reconsider your statement. Please provide a country who has less "real estate" in terms of embodiment in domestic interests abroad, military holdings or otherwise, in the last 40 years.

The US has redefined and expanded the classical techniques of interventionalism. Then walk back down the path of imperialism and explain your view of the US as not falling into the definition.

The United States in all of her glory is no different than Great Britain was from the early 1800s through about 1950. We expropriate surplus from LDCs around the world via market exchange, if a country isn't performing appropriately the recommendations of the Washington Consensus are introduced and if that isn't working we resort to other methods of sanctioning or flexing our military power.

The US isn't exempt from the truth, it just typically isn't considered.

Last 40 years....oh, lemme think...hmmmmm...OK. How about the Soviet Union? How about China?

Now, if you define imperialism in terms of simply using diplomatic means to advance an agenda abroad, ok, the US is guilty. That said, so is every other developed nation on the planet.

As far as projecting by military means, that's a pantload. I'll go even farther back than 50 years. Korea? Hardly imperialism. We were engaged to prevent the spread of Communism. We didn't even really seek to further our interests, just stop the encroachment of communist forces. Pretty much the same story in Vietnam.

I could go on but I'm tired and am losing interest. You are spewing forth nothing substantial. All you've got is some unfounded, empty rhetoric.

BDT

F1nut

mikesd wrote:

Even though I may or may not agree with your opinions (doesn't really matter does it) I think I will go ahead and crawl back into the hole from which I came from now before I have a difference of opinion with a veteran member of this fine forum. Everyone enjoy your Superiority over the newer members, I just do not have the time to stay and enjoy it with you.

If you had bothered to check the motives of patheticleftcoastpussy since he joined yesterday, you'd understand the replies he has received. He has shown zero respect for the forum and it's members, why should he receive any in return!?!

F1nut

pacificoastbear wrote:

Such hostility F1nut.

LOL.....if you think that was me being hostile, you're more delusional than first thought.

What type of person am I exactly

That question had already been answered by your actions since joining yesterday.

Clearly you think I am incorrect, yet you can offer nothing to countersway the facts. I'll refrain from dropping you into a particular stereotype passed on your earlier statement but what harm will come of you if you actually considered something beyond a blind nationalism.

You would be mistaken, I know you're wrong and feel free to drop me into whatever stereotype fits your world. Nothing but water off a duck's back to me.

Blind nationalism? Me? Ha, that is funny. You, on the other hand, need to repeat History 101.

hearingimpared

mikesd wrote:

Even though I may or may not agree with your opinions (doesn't really matter does it) I think I will go ahead and crawl back into the hole from which I came from now before I have a difference of opinion with a veteran member of this fine forum. Everyone enjoy your Superiority over the newer members, I just do not have the time to stay and enjoy it with you.

See Mike it's the attitude Brother. I'm a "newer" member here and I take umbridge to your condescention (sp) here. That **** clown is just that. It is not because he has a difference of opinion, it is the way he comes in with his attitude and acting like a major jerkoff that turned me off to him. Now you want to throw yourself in and insult the "veteran members." This forum contains the most helpful group of maniacs that you will ever encounter, too bad you chose be a dickhead too.

pacificoastbear

Wow.

Talk simple audio systems and everything is copacetic. Differ in opinion about which is more preferable for a HT setup classic 2 channel or surround and a mild debate breaks out. Argue over which brand of amp provides better tonal properties, sure no problem. But purport that the actions of our country are suspect without attacking any member and suddenly the collective lather of the chosen few attack. What gives?

I am rather unsure why the "club" offers new members. It seems that opinions outside of those with a couple more digits in post count, are inconceivable.

Guys if you think I came here to argue over politics on a speaker forum BB, that is funny. I stated an opinion, one is which I singled out no one and attacked no one. I had not realized that polkaudio was endorsing a forum of uniformed thought.

The last year of so I have read some helpful information on this forum which contributed to various home audio decisions over the year. But it is quite disappointing that to become a member with hundreds, even thousands of posts you must abide to particular thoughts.


For those who are independent of mind and senior in tenor, and I am sure there are many, I am sorry for my generalities and inclusion in my statements above. I just feel the actions of the few were unacceptable.

Deadof_knight

The only problem with the news today is the report what they want not everything. point blank. I personally thing the slate shouda been a little cleaner be more serious when you go into fight. no news like bad news !!!

The soldiers are there to do a job from all the ones Ive talk to on flights back there doing it to the best of the ablity. Thank you goes out to all the boys in the camo. A public beheading of Saddam woulda been more appropriate in public.... or mustard gas chamber you know an eye for an eye goes along way.... him and all the other freaking terrorist leaders sendem back to Allah fed-ex priority!

I say pull out nuke for morbid !! (Aliens)


ps drink a little and your mouth just starts running................whooopss !

F1nut

I just feel the actions of the few were unacceptable.

Well, that settles it. You are beyond delusional, you're certifiable.

pacificoastbear wrote:

test

pacificoastbear wrote:

test

pacificoastbear wrote:

need more posts!

pacificoastbear wrote:

it seems rather funny to have a minimum cap on posts and then offer a dump forum for testing ... LOL

The rest, http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/search.php?searchid=643089


No one thinks you came here to argue over politics. See above. Your actions are what is unacceptable.

TroyD

For the record, I don't care if someone has an opposing opinion. Really, I don't. However, the BS posts aside, you haven't provided anything remotely substantive to support your conclusion. That would lead me to believe that you are either trolling or it's not REALLY your opinion but something that sounded good but don't really understand.

Either way, it reflects poorly on you. If you are trolling, get lost. If you don't know what you are talking about, put a sock in it until you do.

BDT

hearingimpared

pacificoastbear wrote:

Wow.Talk simple audio systems and everything is copacetic. Differ in opinion about which is more preferable for a HT setup classic 2 channel or surround and a mild debate breaks out. Argue over which brand of amp provides better tonal properties, sure no problem. But purport that the actions of our country are suspect without attacking any member and suddenly the collective lather of the chosen few attack. What gives?

I am rather unsure why the "club" offers new members. It seems that opinions outside of those with a couple more digits in post count, are inconceivable.

Guys if you think I came here to argue over politics on a speaker forum BB, that is funny. I stated an opinion, one is which I singled out no one and attacked no one. I had not realized that polkaudio was endorsing a forum of uniformed thought.

The last year of so I have read some helpful information on this forum which contributed to various home audio decisions over the year. But it is quite disappointing that to become a member with hundreds, even thousands of posts you must abide to particular thoughts.

For those who are independent of mind and senior in tenor, and I am sure there are many, I am sorry for my generalities and inclusion in my statements above. I just feel the actions of the few were unacceptable.

You sure talk purrrrrrrty to us mooorons out of both sides of your mouth . . .Double-talk.

pacificoastbear wrote:

I just feel the actions of the few were unacceptable

Are you speaking of the actions you provoked? You are still insulting except this time you doing it through an extended hand and a smile. Blow it out your **** and get lost while you are doing it.

bikezappa

It is sad when a dialogue between members appears to be impossible.

Not sure why. I know I feel stupid some times when I have been wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong but people can have different opinions here on this forum without being called names.

I'm not sure how the number of posts a member has have anything to do with the value or accuracy of a post. I like the fact that many members have posted here many more times than I have and understand that they care about the forum.

I also like the forum because there is a wide range of opinions and data on many subjects. If new data or opinions get dumped into the category of lets call him names, how do we form new ideas or progress or improve? I'm far from perfect and any new ideas are the start for me to improve. How else is this done? If different ideas can't be respected, I think we lose something.

I don't like the bullying that can happen here sometimes. Can't we just agree to disagree without the name calling? What purpose does name calling accomplish?

Because if you are older, richer, have a better system or xxxx posts doesn't make you right or a better person in my view.

By the way I didn't think the definitions of imperilism I put up were communist in nature, they came from a simple goggle search.

Here's another one from Webster's.

imperialism
n 1: a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries
2: a political orientation that advocates imperial interests
3: any instance of aggressive extension of authority


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Imperialism \Im*pe"ri*al*ism\, n.
The policy, practice, or advocacy of seeking, or acquiescing
in, the extension of the control, dominion, or empire of a
nation, as by the acquirement of new, esp. distant, territory
or dependencies, or by the closer union of parts more or less
independent of each other for operations of war, copyright,
internal commerce, etc.

Peace to all.

tonyb

Also for the record....forum members old and new do not care about different opinions,audio or otherwise.But when B.S. is thrown into the mix,we call it like we see it,no politically correct,touchy feely,answers.Some subjects are closer to our hearts than others so if your opinion is important enough to you to drop on this forum,be prepared to justify or shut the f**k up!!

F1nut

Peter,

My comments had little to do with his opinion, we all have different opinions. Rather, it had to do with his general BS attitude and lack of respect for the forum and it's members.

bikezappa

F1nut wrote:

Peter,

My comments had little to do with his opinion, we all have different opinions. Rather, it had to do with his general BS attitude and lack of respect for the forum and it's members.

Could you be more specific? "lack of respect for the forum" and "BS attitude".

I didn't feel any lack of respect, but maybe I missed something. I certainly have in the past, ask my wife.

Is there a Polk forum police?

If so, who elected them.

I think every one can express their beliefs in this forum. Even stupid ones, I know I have.