|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 2, 2016 20:30:42 GMT -5
Well I've never been to Spain, But I kinda like the music That question has bugged me for a long time : Beyond 17th century religious music and flamenco, what is spanish music? I have a few records of weird industrial music and some minimal synth tapes from spanish bands, but beyond that, it's I know of almost nothing more. I've encountered much more portuguese music form any time then spanish, weirdly enough, and both countries had very strong dictatorships around the same time. I'm not sure Arthur but maybe you should ask these guys |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Mar 2, 2016 20:35:12 GMT -5
Your Celine Dion and Justin Bieber are on my yard. Get them off! But Grimes can stay on our yard. How do you stand on William Shatner and Michael J Fox? |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 2, 2016 20:36:45 GMT -5
But Grimes can stay on our yard. How do you stand on William Shatner and Michael J Fox? Shat is THE SHIT but I waver a bit with Michael J Fox |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2016 20:37:16 GMT -5
But Grimes can stay on our yard. How do you stand on William Shatner and Michael J Fox? I don't know. I guess they can stay there for a bit? Would that be okay? I mean, how did we suddenly all start sharing a yard? Is this a thing? Who's going grocery shopping (not me!)? Who's mowing the lawn? Who's painting the house? How big is this yard? We have to feed people. That costs money. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 2, 2016 20:40:25 GMT -5
Separation of Church & State - need I say more ? Nope! That's one of the greatest political ideas ever, and I wish more countries were clear about it. I wish the U.S. was more clear about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 2, 2016 20:41:31 GMT -5
Fair enough. And keep your cold weather on your side of the border Your Celine Dion and Justin Bieber are on my yard. Get them off! Dust off Brian Adams while you're at it. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Mar 2, 2016 20:41:33 GMT -5
Yes, the tail end of colonialism and its prophecies (we still had the algerian war, in which my father lost 3 years of his life and a lot of candeur). I still struggle to find a definitive clear official motivation behind that US "intervention" or whatever that was. Alan Moore and Bill Sienkiewicz GN about it taught me a lot about the actual reasons and the "use" for the war, but the reason given to the people on day one of the war, I'm not sure what it is and I'm curious to know if it is just a lack on my part or if many americans also don't really know, beyond that vague communist threat argument... It's not like they would have been talking about WMD back then... The Gulf of Tonkin incident was the one thing that finally dragged the U.S. into the Vietnam War. Pinpointing "day one of the war" is kinda tricky though, because there had been a small U.S. presence there since around 1955, I believe. But the Vietnam War, as most people understand it nowadays, began in August 1964, when the destroyer USS Maddox was attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. A few days later, another U.S. ship was also attacked by North Vietnamese ships. These clashes resulted in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which allowed the U.S. government to considerably escalate their military presence in South Vietnam in 1965. Of course, in later years, there was a lot of controversy around whether or not the "incident" had been fabricated, in order to justify sending more troops to Vietnam to the American public. Even Robert McNamara, who was Secretary of Defense at the time, later stated that parts of the "incident" were indeed fabricated. But, if you're looking for the "official reason" or official start date, as it was perceived by the American public back in 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin incident is your best bet. The Vietnam War is something of a hobby-horse of mine. Do you think it still is the common grasp of it, with younger generations? I mean here in Europe, I guess almost everybody still knows WWI started with the assassination of the Franz Ferdunand duque (WWII is musch more complicated), so maybe it's still also that clear about Viet Nam war nowadays? |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Mar 2, 2016 20:44:58 GMT -5
Nope! That's one of the greatest political ideas ever, and I wish more countries were clear about it. I wish the U.S. was more clear about it. Yeah, the whole swearing on the bible and the "in god we trust" as a pledge even for kids in public schools, that kind of puts a huge dent on that one, amongst other things... :/ |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,202 
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 2, 2016 20:49:40 GMT -5
The Gulf of Tonkin incident was the one thing that finally dragged the U.S. into the Vietnam War. Pinpointing "day one of the war" is kinda tricky though, because there had been a small U.S. presence there since around 1955, I believe. But the Vietnam War, as most people understand it nowadays, began in August 1964, when the destroyer USS Maddox was attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. A few days later, another U.S. ship was also attacked by North Vietnamese ships. These clashes resulted in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which allowed the U.S. government to considerably escalate their military presence in South Vietnam in 1965. Of course, in later years, there was a lot of controversy around whether or not the "incident" had been fabricated, in order to justify sending more troops to Vietnam to the American public. Even Robert McNamara, who was Secretary of Defense at the time, later stated that parts of the "incident" were indeed fabricated. But, if you're looking for the "official reason" or official start date, as it was perceived by the American public back in 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin incident is your best bet. The Vietnam War is something of a hobby-horse of mine. Do you think it still is the common grasp of it, with younger generations? I mean here in Europe, I guess almost everybody still knows WWI started with the assassination of the Franz Ferdunand duque (WWII is musch more complicated), so maybe it's still also that clear about Viet Nam war nowadays? It might be in the U.S., but not here in the UK (and probably not in Europe as a whole). I was taught the history of World War I and II at school back in the '80s, but nobody ever taught me about the Vietnam War. It was left to Paul Hardcastle's record "19", Marvel Comics's The 'Nam and an excellent week-by-week history publication that I collected in the late '80s called 'Nam: The Vietnam Experience to do that.  So, I very much doubt that the Vietnam War is taught is schools these days. In fact, I'm often horrified by how little 15 to 25-year-olds know about the first and second World Wars, let alone Vietnam! |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Mar 2, 2016 20:51:42 GMT -5
Yeah, and schools and businesses should be forced to be open for Christmas. Or am I going too far?
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Mar 2, 2016 21:03:53 GMT -5
Your scientist were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. lolololololol! I like the sentiment a lot. As it applies to a lot of things humans have done. From as trivial as deep frying butter to making atomic weapons. |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Mar 2, 2016 22:14:49 GMT -5
I wish the U.S. was more clear about it. Yeah, the whole swearing on the bible and the "in god we trust" as a pledge even for kids in public schools, that kind of puts a huge dent on that one, amongst other things... :/ No one is required to swear on the Bible, whether in an oath of office or in court. You can affirm in lieu of swearing, and elected officials get sworn on other books (such as a law book or a different religious text). "In God we trust" isn't in the pledge of allegiance; it's the phrase "under God." And while I wish it wasn't in the pledge, kids can't be forced to say it. When my brother was in school, he decided not to stand for or recite the pledge. The school wanted to discipline him. But the ACLU wrote the school a letter on his behalf, and the school caved right away. There's definitely room for improvement in separation of church and state, but I think it terms of both freedom of religion and freedom of speech, the U.S. has a better approach than much of Europe generally does. A lot of European countries use an approach of protecting religion that's supposedly neutral, but it's application is biased. Once I did some research for a professor about the European Court of Human Rights treatment of religious freedom. The "margin of appreciation" doctrine was given a pretty broad interpretation to allow European countries to effectively disregard the European Convention of Human Rights provisions they've signed on to. Essentially, it has allowed European countries to create double standards. France ostensibly bars conspicuous symbols of religions from public schools, but that's was unevenly applied between crosses and the hijab. And the government of France chose which Jewish group controls Kosher butchering, even though there are differing interpretations in Judaism about this. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Mar 2, 2016 23:09:39 GMT -5
You have no need to be anything but proud of what you and your family have accomplished, Randle. I would say, however, that intervening, which more than implies an event of temporary duration, as for example the two world wars, is far different from empire-building and colonizing less powerful states, as we did in the Philippines in the early 1900s, and overthrowing another nation's freely elected government, as we did in Iran in the early 50s and Chile in the 70s. Otherwise, we're cool. I had in mind individuals who have a blanket policy of non-intervention in foreign affairs, like certain brands of libertarianism. While I am sympathetic to some of the reasons why people adopt such a stance, I feel like it would be hypocritical of me to do so given that I have directly benefited from the U.S. not adopting such a policy. Now that being said, I'm very apprehensive of the other extreme as well, including the examples you cite. Those were regrettable incidents that make me wish the U.S. would pursue a policy more akin to the the Prime Directive from Star Trek. There's a definitely a difficult balance to strike. I'm also very much aware that even when appearing to act with the most noble of intentions, the U.S. government rarely has purely altruistic motives, and gets involved only inasmuch as it serves U.S. interests. But regardless of all of that, I'm still very thankful that the U.S. chose to involve itself in Korea, regardless of whatever interests it served or whatever motives the government had. Had they not, it's very likely that I would have grown up under the rule of Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung. And if you know what went on in North Korea during the 90s, then you know I'm not being overdramatic in saying that there's a real possibility that I would not be alive -- or if I was alive, that I would be starving to death. God bless the U.S.A. for that. |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 2, 2016 23:20:59 GMT -5
It's where I keep all of my stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 2, 2016 23:24:24 GMT -5
It's where I keep all of my stuff. A house is just a place for your stuff. |
|
