Quantcast
JC's blah news opinion roundup

Forums - Politics Discussion - JC's blah news opinion roundup

Lol@poll

Using roe to stir up your angry ass base is pretty hilarious to me. It’s shameless. Donald trump is going to choose the next Scotus seat, no amount of anger will change that.

Some idiot climbed the Statue of Liberty. Wow what a revolutionary.

“Scott Pruitt, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was fired recently and it's no secret why. Historians are debating whether he qualifies as having been the most corrupt public official in the history of this country.”

Lmao! Hardly.. Some historians? What are these idiots names? He resigned because he was caught spending money on dumb shit. That’s the entirety of our congress.



Around the Network

Murders and violence in the US are highly concentrated in some big cities and 80% are gang related.

So getting rid of gangs like MS-13 will be the single most important task to protect citizens of any gender.

https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423&page=1

https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/



HylianSwordsman said:
VAMatt said:

Yeah.   When people speak of a "free world" and talk about it having a leader, and, on top of that, the US president being that leader, it makes me cringe.  It just goes to show how indoctrinated people are.  War equals peace, and all that.  

Sometimes people refer to the US President as the leader, other times to the nation itself as the leader. Based on previous discussions we've had, you've said you'd like to see a world with minimal to no government, and you'd like to see the United States lead the charge. As the phrase has never meant ruler but rather leader, as in lead by example, this would mean that if the United States did what you wanted, it would become the leader of the free world. So I don't think you're opposed to the free world having a leader, or even the USA being that leader, or the concept of a free world, you just have a different concept of free and what leadership in that matter would look like.

I guess you're right.  However, I'd note that there is only one definition of free.  So, people would have to say something like "leader of the freer world" to be correct.  



VAMatt said:

I guess you're right.  However, I'd note that there is only one definition of free.  So, people would have to say something like "leader of the freer world" to be correct.  

There is most certainly not just one definition. Merriam-Webster lists 15. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

I mean it in sense 2, particularly b and c, while you mean it somewhat in sense 2d but mostly in sense 3.



HylianSwordsman said:

Sometimes people refer to the US President as the leader, other times to the nation itself as the leader. Based on previous discussions we've had, you've said you'd like to see a world with minimal to no government, and you'd like to see the United States lead the charge. As the phrase has never meant ruler but rather leader, as in lead by example, this would mean that if the United States did what you wanted, it would become the leader of the free world. So I don't think you're opposed to the free world having a leader, or even the USA being that leader, or the concept of a free world, you just have a different concept of free and what leadership in that matter would look like.

Just like Hitler was just the "leader" (Führer) of the Third Reich, right? It doesn't make any sense - if anything, it should be front-runner instead of leader, because it can be misconstrued easily. Maybe even herald would be better.



Around the Network
Kaneman! said:

Just like Hitler was just the "leader" (Führer) of the Third Reich, right? It doesn't make any sense - if anything, it should be front-runner instead of leader, because it can be misconstrued easily. Maybe even herald would be better.

I could see herald. Don't blame me for the English language's confusing way of using certain words to mean lots of similar things. I don't understand what the big deal is with that phrase all of a sudden. What's wrong with having other countries follow our example? What's wrong with other countries being democracies? I don't understand what's so controversial about the phrase unless you're of an anarchist's mindset that the "free" in "free world" isn't free enough or if you're actually in favor of dictatorships.

Edit: Champion, maybe? As in, the country that champions the values of a free world? Like the chief promoter of those ideals? Either way, I don't control how the euphemism was formed or how it's used today. That's just how it is. We could try to start a trend if you want, but otherwise...



Kaneman! said:
HylianSwordsman said:

Sometimes people refer to the US President as the leader, other times to the nation itself as the leader. Based on previous discussions we've had, you've said you'd like to see a world with minimal to no government, and you'd like to see the United States lead the charge. As the phrase has never meant ruler but rather leader, as in lead by example, this would mean that if the United States did what you wanted, it would become the leader of the free world. So I don't think you're opposed to the free world having a leader, or even the USA being that leader, or the concept of a free world, you just have a different concept of free and what leadership in that matter would look like.

Just like Hitler was just the "leader" (Führer) of the Third Reich, right? It doesn't make any sense - if anything, it should be front-runner instead of leader, because it can be misconstrued easily. Maybe even herald would be better.

Hes the leader of the federal government, not the people or the states. The executive is the leader. They don’t “rule” like a king though, there are 2 other equal branches of government, the powers were separated but they are all tied down by the limitations in our constitution. Their authority doesn’t exist beyond that document. The importance of our federal government has been highly overplayed for a hundred years with the introduction and beginnings of the progressive left in America. America is largely supposed to be State based governance. State laws can be anything as long as it agrees to basic broad federal rules.

Last edited by massimus - on 07 July 2018

HylianSwordsman said:

I could see herald. Don't blame me for the English language's confusing way of using certain words to mean lots of similar things. I don't understand what the big deal is with that phrase all of a sudden. What's wrong with having other countries follow our example? What's wrong with other countries being democracies? I don't understand what's so controversial about the phrase unless you're of an anarchist's mindset that the "free" in "free world" isn't free enough or if you're actually in favor of dictatorships.

Edit: Champion, maybe? As in, the country that champions the values of a free world? Like the chief promoter of those ideals? Either way, I don't control how the euphemism was formed or how it's used today. That's just how it is. We could try to start a trend if you want, but otherwise...

The whole term is anachronistic by now, as we aren't in the cold war period anymore, it's as much a term as "the West" compared to "the East". But since those terms went with the iron curtain, then where do you draw the line? What encompasses the so called free world currently?

Then, obviously I have nothing against democracy, even though there's one or two things to say about your two-party system, which definitely isn't the most democratic way to go.

In any case, that's all nit-picking, I actually don't mind it too much, although I agree that champion sounds more substantial than leader. 

Or it should be the Avatar, and spread the virtues all over Britannia the world.



HylianSwordsman said:
Kaneman! said:

Just like Hitler was just the "leader" (Führer) of the Third Reich, right? It doesn't make any sense - if anything, it should be front-runner instead of leader, because it can be misconstrued easily. Maybe even herald would be better.

I could see herald. Don't blame me for the English language's confusing way of using certain words to mean lots of similar things. I don't understand what the big deal is with that phrase all of a sudden. What's wrong with having other countries follow our example? What's wrong with other countries being democracies? I don't understand what's so controversial about the phrase unless you're of an anarchist's mindset that the "free" in "free world" isn't free enough or if you're actually in favor of dictatorships.

Edit: Champion, maybe? As in, the country that champions the values of a free world? Like the chief promoter of those ideals? Either way, I don't control how the euphemism was formed or how it's used today. That's just how it is. We could try to start a trend if you want, but otherwise...

Firstly, people not liking arrogance is pretty common and really shouldn't come as a shock to anybody.

Secondly, because other countries may have better ideas for how to do things, if they aren't already doing them better. And if we're talking about democratic practices then there's definitely countries that are doing it better (subjective, I know, but surely most people could agree that there are some major flaws in the US democratic process).



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

massimus said:
Kaneman! said:

Just like Hitler was just the "leader" (Führer) of the Third Reich, right? It doesn't make any sense - if anything, it should be front-runner instead of leader, because it can be misconstrued easily. Maybe even herald would be better.

Hes the leader of the government, not the people. The executive is the leader. They don’t “rule” like a king though, there are 2 other equal branches of government, the powers were separated but they are all tied down by the limitations in our constitution. Their authority doesn’t exist beyond that document. The importance of our federal government has been highly overplayed for a hundred years with the introduction and beginnings of the progressive left in America. America is largely supposed to be State based governance. State laws can be anything as long as it agrees to basic broad federal rules.

I know, we were talking about the semantics of the word "leader", rather than the de facto political applications of the term.