quote:

Originally posted by Shakka In all honesty, I hate the little shorthand things so much it drives me nuts when people type "u" instead of "you."

what about in text messages? I think different rules apply to text messages. on a cell phone it's much easier to write "u2" than it is to write "you too," but that's just me.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 what about in text messages? I think different rules apply to text messages. on a cell phone it's much easier to write "u2" than it is to write "you too," but that's just me.

I know what you mean, but it still annoys me--especially if it's in a professional environment. And I have an iPhone so it fixes it for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I know what you mean, but it still annoys me--especially if it's in a professional environment. And I have an iPhone so it fixes it for me.

I use a BB for work, and I write out full grammatically correct sentences for work emails on my BB (i almost never send professional text messages). Text messages to friends & the woman are totally different.

An interesting point:

"American cultural hegemony persists, even as the economic catastrophe Americans helped feed has taken a bite out of everyone else's peace of mind."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl..._our_discontent

An article talking mainly about how even in the wake of declining American relative economic and military power, cultural (soft) power is still rising (or at least staying predominant).

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by josh4

Talk about a blow smoke up ass, puff piece...that takes the cake. All I need to know of that editorial's agenda are the slights against Thatcher and Reagan and how questionable their Nobel selections supposedly were (at least they got Carter right...how they fail to see the similarity with this current Administration is a bit of a shocker). Both Thatcher and Reagan stood up against the Soviet threat and successfully beat it down (regardless of how much this was due to Soviet economic implosion versus pressure from these 2 figureheads, pretending they made no measurable impact is historical revisionism at best).

Apparently, a "goodist" is simply one who can vocalize hollow, feel-good promises to a gullible public, and whose end game is to simply be loved on the world stage. This is an untenable position as our very own TX progressive has already accurately alluded that, as the world police force, there will always be some entity that is unhappy with the manner in which we wield military power. Disarming serves to make us more vulnerable to these types of states and is not what one would do in the name of self-interest with these kinds of international players on stage. Proof of that can be seen in today's headline, in fact: Analysis: Washington's overplayed hand on Russia

Last edited by vinnie97 on Oct-19-2009 at 08:47

quote:

Originally posted by vinnie97 Talk about a blow smoke up ass, puff piece...that takes the cake. All I need to know of that editorial's agenda are the slights against Thatcher and Reagan and how questionable their Nobel selections supposedly were (at least they got Carter right...how they fail to see the similarity with this current Administration is a bit of a shocker). Both Thatcher and Reagan stood up against the Soviet threat and successfully beat it down (regardless of how much this was due to Soviet economic implosion versus pressure from these 2 figureheads, pretending they made no measurable impact is historical revisionism at best). Apparently, a "goodist" is simply one who can vocalize hollow, feel-good promises to a gullible public, and whose end game is to simply be loved on the world stage. This is an untenable position as our very own TX progressive has already accurately alluded that, as the world police force, there will always be some entity that is unhappy with the manner in which we wield military power. Disarming serves to make us more vulnerable to these types of states and is not what one would do in the name of self-interest with these kinds of international players on stage. Proof of that can be seen in today's headline, in fact: Analysis: Washington's overplayed hand on Russia

LOL @ Soviet Union collapsing because of Reagan and Thatcher...

___________________

Of course a self-professed leftist lib would NEVER admit to such a possibility or even give them an iota of credit.

quote:

Originally posted by vinnie97 Of course a self-professed leftist lib would NEVER admit to such a possibility or even give them an iota of credit.

And of course a nationalist doombot (you) would put the credit of the USSR collapse in the hands of Reagan. Any objective analysis of the political scenario of the time would put the cause of the collapse in the hands of the USSR itself. The USSR would have collapsed with a tree hugging hippie in the White House.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by vinnie97 Of course a self-professed leftist lib would NEVER admit to such a possibility or even give them an iota of credit.

Neither do historians or economists, but I suppose that's irrelevant where political opinions are involved.

Deep Thought: People should stop pretending Obama's the Messiah and get back to bedrock Americanism like praising Ronald Reagan....

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton LOL @ Soviet Union collapsing because of Reagan and Thatcher...

Oh. My. God.

Reagan scared the shit out of them and forced them to blow tons more money than they otherwise would have on military/missle technology. It also didn't hurt that we indirectly kicked their ass by funding and training dozens of groups around the planet that were actively fighting them and dealing devastating blows in places like Afghanistan.

Would they have collapsed anyway? Yeah..cuz socialism = epic fail (something many lefties still refuse to accept). But Reagan certainly accelerated the process.