moderateamericain

Use this as an open forum, to discuss the contest, medals, etc. But what I would like to write about is How relevant is it in todays world. Some people would argue that the Olympics are tarnished because of so many athletes using performance enhancing drugs. Sadly there is quite a few American athletes who are guilty of this. On the other hand the Olympics are the one time where we set aside are differences and come together and celebrate excellence. So my question for all of you to discuss is do you believe the Olympics are relevant and meaningful anymore. And If why do you think that. I reserve my thoughts till after a few post, this should get some interesting responses.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080808/ap_on_...CwSd6Mh78pvaA8F In case you dont know this Georgia is actively trying to join with NATO. The US trains Georgian troops who currently have about 2k in Iraq. This is getting beyond serious. Open warefare is a big deal. Especially when dealing with two kids on the block who historically dont flinch when it comes to games of chicken.

Omnium rerum principia parva sunt. ~ Cicero The beginnings of all things are small. It just so happens to be what I think when people talk about how foolish it is to go after small countries that harbor terrorist or countries that are hostile towards us. I also like Neither a wise nor a brave man lies down on the tracks of history to wait for the train of the future to run over him. Dwight Eisenhower

Yeah but you also have to consider the NSA and the CIA as well. If you dont think they are looking around in Deerborn Michigan or Coldwater your crazy lol

man you guys must have gone to "im a sarcastic asshole" school because you are all masters of your crafts HAHA! But seriously on topic Obama is something of enigma to me. Look at his recent vote on warrantless wiretaps? I mean is that not that complete opposite of what being a social liberal is all about? I can't figure this guy out. Is he just positioning himself to look reasonable to moderates? To me he just looks like hes sacrificing values to get elected. And because of that, If hes willing to throw out core beliefs held by his political party and "SHOULD" be held by himself then why the heck would I want to vote for him. Just a personal observation. Personally I think the Government is using the threat of terrorist action to strip away are freedoms.

Not to mention it does nothing to solve the long term problem of reliance on foreign oil. Its sort of like cutting off your head to eliminate a headache.

Unfortunetly he is right, However I am extremely opposed to wire taps without a warrant. Theres no way for the people to Check the government on it since its obviously secret. This could become a serious source of corruption.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/09/news/econo...oney_topstories this shows the limited way the government is looking at solutions. Non of these address long term issues.

I have to agree with most of your assesment. I believe that people really don't care about solving the issue. The simply use it as a political "club" to further there own ends. I believe one of two things needs to happen Americans need to either grass roots a movement towards clean energy or The oil Tycoons need to use there considerable profits (or a portion of it) and do something for others then themselves. What could they possible want in this world that they couldnt already afford? The first is more likely but only when we reach the breaking point the second is only likely if and when we we reach a breaking point. Either way its most likely tough times ahead.

well i was going to be polite and let someone else have the first opinion on this matter, I thought for sure that someone would post an opinion since Renewable energy is like the hottest topic in politics in the 21st century. In my opinion we need to find some answers and fast, the government needs to push this and we need more Oil Tycoons to start worrying about there country and less about how many billions of dollars they are going to make this year. I know this doesnt solve the problem. But its a step in the right direction.

Obviously I don't want to make a strawman argument here. I would think England would not go to that extent but if you look at countries that adopted "islamic law" in pieces throughout history many of them became de facto islamic states. I don't believe the English government is suddenly one day going to say its okay to kill your daughter for getting raped. But does anyone believe that the Islamic political groups in England could one day gain enough political power to infact make Shariah law a full part of the English law? In otherwords will Islamic culture and values eventually dominate traditional British/English values.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/04/s...aw-britain.html According to the most Senior Judge in England it should be applied. The question I have for you all to discuss is how far should the British government let this go? If they allow parts of Islamic law will it eventually give way to the whole thing? IE stoning, etc

http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/ The proposed plan states that it could cut are dependency on foreign oil by 1/3. I encourage you all to check it out.

I know this is kind of a crappy response to a really well thought out post. But i worked 70 hours last week. So let me just say Africa is cursed.

Maybe it is drivel. But let me ask you this. Why should any country that believes in democracy and Freedom of speech live in fear of what content they put out. How many times is Jesus made fun of on television? No, the inflammatory aspect is created by the people who have an inferority complex. I could care less if Jesus is shown smoking pot or in a hawaiin t shirt waving the peace sign. People have the right to freedom speech in a democracy otherwise whats the point?

Yes we will, Look at examples like Soviet Russia, Post Civil war Vietnam, Cambodia, Nazi Germany, etc etc

Constitution puts limits on what the state can lawfully do. It also provides the people with the tools to protect there rights. We all live in a collective agreement in the states. Thats what all societies are really. We all agree to not kill eachother and if someone violates that then society punishes him or her for breaking that social agreement. At the same token, the people we assign the task of carrying out punishment should have limits put on them as to what is reasonable and lawful. Its a give and take for both sides. Yes I give up the right to not kill my neighbor but i gain the right to not be killed. Its abstract i know. My favorite quote all time is "People should not fear the Government, Government should fear its people"

Its really too bad. I know how enlisted men view it, how can they expect him to earn the trust of the men he is to command? hes a trained soldier and wants to earn his way in life. I say good for him. Like you all said 3rd in line to the throne. Let the boy take lifes lumps if he wants it. And this rubbish about getting people killed. I gurantee you ask those soldiers and they will tell you that they are proud to have him in there unit. How far the world has come when we dont WANT people of privilage to take up the same chance as the rest of us do. I call arm chair general on the lot of you who think its a bad thing for him to serve his country. God forbid royalty actually lead and not just send others into the meat grinder. A few of our politicans in the USA should do the same.

I am a big beliver in protecting the consititution. Unless something is visible, (per your pot in the ashtray example) Then everyone should refuse to allow a police officer to search there vehicles. Protect your civil rights and exercise them whenever possible. And yes you can refuse an officer to search your vehicle without a warrant. The minute we start giving up are rights or letting the police walk over them the closer we get to totalitarinism. And it always starts with the simple laws. and yes i realize this is a canadian thread, however i dont know how your search and seizure laws work in canada.

I would watch these situations candidly. If you recall this region of the world has caused not 1 but 2 world wars in the passed 100 years. Granted we did not get into the 2nd war until the bombing at pearl harbor. The balkans and its associated areas are a powder keg just waiting to happen. God forbid it ever be so, but if a religious war ever did occur. Kosovo/Serbia would be ground zero. Maybe what these people need is seperation from eachother. I dont see the tention slowing down anytime in the next 1000 years.

Im going to catch hell for this. But I think it stems from two things. First, the break down of traditional family values. Families are less and less connected with each other. I would not even mind if it was a Gay family just so long as family values are present. I also think because you see more and more of the dual income families that the children feel more inclined to do things to get attention. Since one or both of their parents are not present often enough. Now I am not saying women get back into the kitchen at all. Secondly I belive that kids today are taught to pay attention to their emotions too much. They have emotion months in schools and such. I think its good to be able to identify your emotions but i believe its not good to act out of emotion. I dont see teachers pushing logic, i hear things like how does that make you FEEL. Now im not a unemotional bastard but I think there is a balance that older generations posess that these younger kids do not have instilled in them. Also, since when did we put kids on drugs for every little thing. Got ADD? means you have to work harder than the next kid to get ahead.

You fail to mention the Monetary fines levied against the German people by the french. I forget what the actual figure it was but it was broken down to around 7,000 dollars per german. Obviously theres no way Germany could have met that obligation. Remember this is the 1920's as well. where 7000 dollars was probably more like 700,000 dollars today.

TO blame the US for the rise of Hitler is to take history and warp in beyond all contextual basis. Yes we financed the reconstruction effort post world war 1. But if you recall we stopped about the time of the great depression for obvious reasons. Furthermore Hitler was not only elected times man of the year, but was praised by European countries roundly in the early 30's for turning Germany around. TO put that mad man's rise to power squarely on the shoulders of the US is like saying Its my fault someone broke into my house disarmed the security alarm system and killed my wife. Furthermore Hitler would have never risen to power had the French and English dealt more evenly with the Germans post world war 1. The conessions they demanded from them were outlandish at best.

O Im not arguing that, but the topic is about what frustrates you or are your pet peeves. That just happens to be one of mine.

I dislike arm chair warriors. People who look at war like a chest game. Or people that judge commanders of men without ever being in the military themself. Think of it like John madden evaluating football players without ever having played or coached the game. You would be like what the hell do you know? A prime example of this, The blackwater hearings in the senate. The Senate hearing committee kept going back to an incident in which a blackwater employee accidently shot an iraqi civilian while being shot at himself. I promise you one thing, Put a gun in that senators hands and start shooting at him and see if he shoots back.