Prince Harry

[bleeding heart]

Who said anything about right or wrong. I'm saying just don't bitch if it blows up in your face.

But you said it's crossing a line, which I thought implied some sort of moral position, a "don't criticize my country, you" way of thinking.

Which, incidentally, part of me gets, in a sense, though I consider patriotic reflexivity to be, at bottom, a weakness.

Not patriotism itself, which is at best good, and at worst, trivial. But the "don't badmouth my country" theme is another matter.

Edited September 10, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Wilber]

Indeed I do think there is a line between saying, "your government sucks" and "your system of government sucks". The latter shows a lack of respect. It is not a moral position, say it if you wish but be prepared to get bombed for your trouble.

[Guest American Woman]

Indeed I do think there is a line between saying, "your government sucks" and "your system of government sucks". The latter shows a lack of respect. It is not a moral position, say it if you wish but be prepared to get bombed for your trouble.

Indeed you have a thin skin; along with a defensive attitude that makes you believe people said something that they never said.

But FYI, not everything about every government deserves "respect." Furthermore, I'm not obligated to "respect" every last aspect of your system of government - any more than you or the rest of the world respects every last aspect of the U.S. government. Because I criticize one part of it doesn't mean that I think your system of government sucks - nor did I so much as insinuate that I do.

[GostHacked]

Indeed you have a thin skin; along with a defensive attitude that makes you believe people said something that they never said.

Et tu American Woman?

But FYI, not everything about every government deserves "respect." Furthermore, I'm not obligated to "respect" every last aspect of your system of government - any more than you or the rest of the world respects every last aspect of the U.S. government. Because I criticize one part of it doesn't mean that I think your system of government sucks - nor did I so much as insinuate that I do.

As long as you understand that both positions require some discrimination as to who actually gets that position. We can can argue about the degree of discrimination between the two, but you first have to recognize that there are discrimination of who can be POTUS.

[Guest American Woman]

Speaking of Prince Harry: Afghan Taliban threaten to kidnap and kill Prince Harry

The Afghan Taliban said on Monday they were doing everything in their power to try to kidnap or kill Britain's Prince Harry, who arrived in Afghanistan last week to fly attack helicopters.

"We are using all our strength to get rid of him, either by killing or kidnapping," Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, told Reuters by phone from an undisclosed location.

"We have informed our commanders in Helmand to do whatever they can to eliminate him," Mujahid added, declining to go into detail on what he called the "Harry operations".

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he was not worried about the Taliban threat against Prince Harry.

"That's not a matter of concern," Rasmussen told a news conference in Brussels on Monday. "I mean, we do everything we can to protect all our troops deployed to Afghanistan whatever might be their personal background."

I don't see how it can be said that it's not a matter of concern when it's such a specific threat.

[GostHacked]

Speaking of Prince Harry: Afghan Taliban threaten to kidnap and kill Prince Harry

The Afghan Taliban said on Monday they were doing everything in their power to try to kidnap or kill Britain's Prince Harry, who arrived in Afghanistan last week to fly attack helicopters.

"We are using all our strength to get rid of him, either by killing or kidnapping," Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, told Reuters by phone from an undisclosed location.

"We have informed our commanders in Helmand to do whatever they can to eliminate him," Mujahid added, declining to go into detail on what he called the "Harry operations".

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he was not worried about the Taliban threat against Prince Harry.

"That's not a matter of concern," Rasmussen told a news conference in Brussels on Monday. "I mean, we do everything we can to protect all our troops deployed to Afghanistan whatever might be their personal background."

I don't see how it can be said that it's not a matter of concern when it's such a specific threat.

Daddy thought he was an embarrassment to the Royal Family and was sent to Afghanistan as a lesson. That is how I interpret this. His naked trip in LA seems to be a bit of a stain.

[Wilber]

Believe he was already scheduled to go before the party took place.

[cybercoma]

Prove them to be false.

What you did there... I see it!

[cybercoma]

I went through this entire thread to find where American Woman answered g_bambino's question because I thought she had said something along the lines of a citizen who's born outside the US would have divided loyalties and that's why it's a necessary requirement for the POTUS to be born in the US, but I can't even find that. Now I don't think she ever explained why being born in the US is a necessary requirement.

[Wilber]

I went through this entire thread to find where American Woman answered g_bambino's question because I thought she had said something along the lines of a citizen who's born outside the US would have divided loyalties and that's why it's a necessary requirement for the POTUS to be born in the US, but I can't even find that. Now I don't think she ever explained why being born in the US is a necessary requirement.

Believe she did say that.

[Guest American Woman]

Daddy thought he was an embarrassment to the Royal Family and was sent to Afghanistan as a lesson. That is how I interpret this. His naked trip in LA seems to be a bit of a stain.

Prince Harry continues long tradition of royalty at war

This is his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, and military life seems to suit him; and according to the article I cited, his troops like and respect him.

To some, it may seem that Buckingham Palace’s reaction to Prince Harry’s celebrated romp in Las Vegas was to dispatch him to Afghanistan.

Those who might think that way, would view it as punishment — or at least to remove him from the public eye.

I’d argue the opposite.

While I doubt Harry’s hijinks in Vegas were a ploy to force the Palace to exile him for a while, it also seems a fact that he’s delighted to be there.

Prince Harry genuinely seems to relish army life.

Doesn't sound as if there will be any "lesson" involved.

[Wilber]

Examiner

It was made clear he was going back last February. Probably just waited till after the Jubilee and Olympics to send him. His Vegas shindig was probably his last big piss up before deployment.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

His Vegas shindig was probably his last big piss up before deployment.

I was thinking the same thing. This deployment will not be wrapped in the secrecy that his last tour was, though, so I wouldn't take the Taliban's threat with a grain of salt.

[g_bambino]

Believe she did say that.

Any idea where? Because she doesn't seem to know.

[Wilber]

Any idea where? Because she doesn't seem to know.

It's there somewhere and I think I responded to it. Doesn't matter what the reason, it still discriminates. There is also a reason the Monarchy discriminates. Both systems have their reasons but they both discriminate.

[cybercoma]

It's there somewhere and I think I responded to it. Doesn't matter what the reason, it still discriminates. There is also a reason the Monarchy discriminates. Both systems have their reasons but they both discriminate.

Yes, but where's the post because I can't find it. I would like to read it in context, since AW no longer wants to speak for herself.

[Guest American Woman]

It's there somewhere and I think I responded to it. Doesn't matter what the reason, it still discriminates.

This says it all right here - "doesn't matter the reason." Requiring a doctor to have a medical degree, since the reason it's required doesn't matter, is discrimination, too. again.

[Wilber]

This says it all right here - "doesn't matter the reason." Requiring a doctor to have a medical degree, since the reason it's required doesn't matter, is discrimination, too. again.

How can you get a degree to be born in the US? One can become a Catholic or an un Catholic

One cannot become born a US citizen

[Guest American Woman]

How can you get a degree to be born in the US? One can become a Catholic or an un Catholic

One cannot become born a US citizen

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

[g_bambino]

It's there somewhere and I think I responded to it. Doesn't matter what the reason, it still discriminates. There is also a reason the Monarchy discriminates. Both systems have their reasons but they both discriminate.

Like cybercoma, I'd like to read what she wrote and see the context in which she wrote it.

Of course, to the rest of us, even reasonable discrimination is still discrimination. However, AW only sees discrimination as unreasonable, something pejorative. She's able to perform this change of definition of "discrimination" by relabeling reasonable discrimination as "necessary qualification". In her mind, she can then say with conviction that what she's determined is unreasonable (excluding all Catholics from the Canadian throne) is blatant discrimination, while what she considers reasonable (excluding all US citizens not born in the US) is not. Her whole argument that excluding US citizens born outside the US isn't discrimination falls apart should she not be able explain how being born in the US is a "necessary qualification" (read: reasonable discrimination) for being president; she has to accept her own logic, and even according to it, the rule would have to be classified as discriminatory.

[ed.: +, sp]

Edited September 11, 2012 by g_bambino

[Wilber]

Like cybercoma, I'd like to read what she wrote and see the context in which she wrote it.

Of course, to the rest of us, even reasonable discrimination is still discrimination. However, AW only sees discrimination as unreasonable, something pejorative. She's able to perform this change of definition of "discrimination" by relabeling resonable discrimination as "necessary qualification". In her mind, she can then say with conviction that excluding all Catholics from the Canadian throne is blatant discrimination, while excluding all US citizens not born in the US is not. That falls apart should she not be able explain how being born in the US is a "necesary qualification" for being president; she has to accept her own logic, and even according to it, the rule would have to be calssified as discriminatory.

"Necessary" is open to debate as well. Something is only really necesary if it is essential to doing the job. It has never been demonstrated that a non US born citizen couldn't or wouldn't do a better job, only fear they might have other allegences. Excluding someone out a fear of something that has never happened is discrmination.

Interestingly, many if not most of America' s most damaging spies have been US born.

[cybercoma]

Research also shows that foreign-born citizens tend to be more patriotic and have a greater sense of civic duty than domestic born ones.

[g_bambino]

"Necessary" is open to debate as well. Something is only really necesary if it is essential to doing the job. It has never been demonstrated that a non US born citizen couldn't or wouldn't do a better job, only fear they might have other allegences. Excluding someone out a fear of something that has never happened is discrmination.

Absolutely. I only asked her to explain how being born in the US is a necessary qualification for being president because she's deemed any qualification required to perform a job as non-discriminatory. As I said, I'm playing within (and with) her own rules. For the rest of us, even a necessary qualification (like not being diabetic to be a bus driver) is still discrimination.

[Guest American Woman]

For the rest of us, even a necessary qualification (like not being diabetic to be a bus driver) is still discrimination.

And this is exactly why I refuse to discuss this with you, because that is not the context of which I am referring to "discrimination" - which is of the unnecessary variety - and I'm assuming that you're bright enough to realize that. To say necessary qualifications is skin to "discrimination" is to enter into a whole different context/meaning, and I'm not interested in playing word games with you or anyone else. Any and all discussions/issues could be reduced to word games, and unless you are honest enough to discuss it in the context of which it is being referred, I'm not interested in wasting my time.

Edited September 11, 2012 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

To say necessary qualifications is skin to "discrimination" is to enter into a whole different context/meaning.

See? I was spot on.