ADN

Ferguson rips on Kerry

Kerry screws up a joke and no one laughs. Bush screws up...well, he just screwed up, and not even Rumsfeld wants to hang. Tough crowd.

My thing is, everyone wants to talk about what they feel are negative remarks made by anyone, per anything positive...You would think that all Dubya has done his entire life is fuck up...Shit, I doubt that, have you seen the twins..?

I wonder how many of us would look if our lives were under the microscope, if someone for 8 hours a day was looking for shit to talk about where you are concerned, 90% of the time it being negative...

Positive shit makes page 10, a minor fuckup makes front, and a questionable call marks your entire campaign...And on top of that, people that don't even live here got mad shit to talk about our country, meanwhile fucked up shit is going on in every country...Its ridiculous...

You can't make everybody happy all of the time...You cut taxes here, someone else is going to be fucked...We loan a country a shitload of money, nobody says anything...We loan country a gajillion bucks, and they don't pay us back, and respond by sticking some cruise missles up their asses, we're the bad guys...A poor defenseless country needs some military assistance, and we help out, we're war mongering, but if a poor fucked up country needs some help and we don't go, we're still fucked...

I know things aren't the best, but I fucking love my country...I love living here, and wouldn't want to live anywhere else, unless I'll be living there with some supreme Gostosa... /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Sorry for the rant...But the lack of balance in this forum in particular is extremely disturbing...It can't be that hard to talk about and discuss other issues, is it..?

I think you fail to see why this was so huge. Read raum's posts in this thread.

I have no problem ripping on Bush. Check out this thread I posted in the Water Cooler.

What is this about me not reading threads..? I read and comprehend every thread I post in...I don't need to reread anything...I would have said something if I didn't understand the things I read...Perhaps you should reread my post...

Point being, I don't mean this issue in particular, I mean in general...I'm very offended by what Kerry said...But, in a similar instance, I watched some shit go down maybe two years ago, when Trent Lott said to a 700 year old Strom Thurmond at a birthday roast, "Maybe things would be different had you won," or some shit like that, and the media had a field day with it...They called Strom Thurmond all kinds of racists, said Trent Lott was a racist, when it turns out Strom Thurmond was cutting dark oak all along...Now how racist could he be if he got mixed grandkids..?

The point is that things are plucked, and pulled, and taken out of context, we read them, and we form opinions about them...

Nobody has any issue ripping on Bush, but I hope that for their sake, they spend just as much time praising him when he does shit like give tax refunds to citizens no other president has or signs a bill promoting research...

Trent Lott said:
QUOTE"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

This comment is one of the first sniper shots at the Repulican majority. It was because part of the platform Thurmond ran on was segregation. It was NOT the basis of racism for him, and part of his platform was also for increasing a non-white immigration. The reason he called for segregation was because "it kept the peace". "Like sticks to like" is a simple truth in the south, especially in the 1940's.

This comment, however, was not about the civil war, which some Democrats claimed. But neither was it about segregation. It was the simple plan to create an aggressive National Defense platform independent of the United Nations. in everything else that Thurmond changed or revised his policy EXCEPT the simple idea of keeping America's nose in America's business. Keep in mind, Thurmond and Lott were instrumental in giving a fair shake at early attempts at equal opportunity and affirmative action. Furthermore, he had already said that nstead of offering foreign aid, we'd be better off doing "some good here for the people who been done wrong." And in that, he meant veterans, minorities, and the impoverished and homeless after the great depression.

To me, this was self evident to any politically aware American, and it was wrapped in the all too terse and matter-of-fact wording of an old man that any kid from the south heard more than once. You always hear about "all that trouble nowadays", and how it all comes down to somewhere along the way, people broke with the advice of their elders. and besides which, if I were Thurmond, I'd been pissed someone has to raise a stink at the goings-on of my HUNDREDTH birthday party. Hell, if I live to be a hundred, and someone wants to offer comment on some words that grace that gift of a tenth decade of life, I will personally make them lick the cobwebs off of my asscrack. friggin whiners.

now, compare that comment that had to be spelled out in a certain way to even be a source of offense to the one made by Kerry, who plain and simple said, "IF WE HAVE A VOLUNTEER MILITARY, THE POOR THE BROWN AND THE BLACK (who I fear we can't trust) WILL DOMINATE THE FORCE."

His comment speaks to these things:

1. He regards military volunteerism as something one must be disadvantaged to be in, unless they have another (political?) motive.

2. He doesn't trust the poor, black and brown.

3. He thinks the "mercenary force" employed by the US for national defense is not based on patriotism.

4. If he is not not for military volunteerism, he is one of those who voted to have a permanent draft be the means of growing the military.

...and in particular case of his first comment, he was trying to limit the number of "those people" we let serve in the military, cause "we" should realize they can't be trusted, after all they would resort to being professional soldiers for a buck.

Thurmond was a man with views, and in the 52 years between his campaign and his centennial they changed, and for as much ignorance as he had, he made some real good well before; as did Lott.

Kerry is as paranoid, unstable, and inconsistent as ever... and the comments he made twenty years ago are still fresh on his mind.

QUOTEMy thing is, everyone wants to talk about what they feel are negative remarks made by anyone, per anything positive...

I wonder how many of us would look if our lives were under the microscope, if someone for 8 hours a day was looking for shit to talk about where you are concerned, 90% of the time it being negative...

Positive shit makes page 10, a minor fuckup makes front, and a questionable call marks your entire campaign...


You can't make everybody happy all of the time...


That doesn't just apply to negative remarks towards a country.......

QUOTESorry for the rant...But the lack of balance in this forum in particular is extremely disturbing...It can't be that hard to talk about and discuss other issues, is it..?

Do not be sorry for ranting. I have been mostly silent on this forum for almost a month now, and in 11 days time may disappear from this place altogether, because of the imbalance. I find it very difficult to bluntly speak of my grandfather's recent death (I've avoided classes 'cause it's hard just being near people) and I get nothing but
coarse-languaged disrespectful mean negative remarks as if anything of my life is worth nothing and cast aside quicker than freshly laden sloppy shit.....

no... it is how man is: the good is interred with the bones, the evil lives after them.

I am wondering about that lack of balance though. what do you mean with that aj?

OK Brains, I'll tell you what I mean, or am hinting at...There are approximately...50 threads shown on the first page of the worldwide forum...

Of those 50, I'm guessing about 40 - 45 of them deal with the U.S. specifically...Of those 40-45, about 85 - 95% of them are negatively charged...

Using you as an example, and not to be picking, every topic you start is geared towards the US and its affairs...Which of course, is absolutely fine...But the name of this forum is 'Worldwide', as in, what's going on in your neck of the woods..? You would think Belgium is Utopia, I don't see a single thread directed towards any Belgium related anything...Why is that..? And how is it that you are so versed in American and International affairs, when your own views and involvement in your gov't remain to be seen..?

I'm just saying to us all, to try and do some fair and balanced reporting...I'm not saying people aren't doing that already, but just looking at the ratio of topics...Goodness...Damn near every topic I read my ass is tight like I may have to defend something, when I would like to come here and read stuff from all corners of the world, and news of a variety, and not so many political flamefests that are vested in little merit in the first place...

If anyone here was capable of running a nation, they'd be doing it, simple and plain...

And sorry to have ruined this thread, but it just reminded me of this little issue I've had with balance here lately...

so this is a geographical balance you are looking for?

well, being that I live 20 minutes from the Liberty Bell, for me, America is home for me. I have written about foreign countries, where i had anything to offer. and I have had more than a few words about the UN.

but I can't offer much more. what about that flash site xen posted, the globe which linked to all the newspapers? that was pretty cool, but far too time consuming for me.