No, no, no, you're doing it all wrong. You have gone from being a guy with a hilarious voice who likes furries and cares about politics, to a guy with a hilarious voice who likes furries and cares about politics more.I have gone from a right-libertarian imperialist to a more compassionate pragmatic liberatarian.
WTF is a "libertarian imperialist"? I have no clue what this might mean. To me, it is a contradiction in terms.I have gone from a right-libertarian imperialist..
Libertarianism, by axiom, is both compassionate and pragmatic. Good move.to a more compassionate pragmatic liberatarian.
Ooooooohhhh!! Civ3 Demogame II!
I had forgotten all about the Demogames! Those were the days.
Three years a communist. Three years a Randroid. Nine years a troll.
No, no, no, you're doing it all wrong. You have gone from being a guy with a hilarious voice who likes furries and cares about politics, to a guy with a hilarious voice who likes furries and cares about politics more.
WTF is a "libertarian imperialist"? I have no clue what this might mean. To me, it is a contradiction in terms.
Libertarianism, by axiom, is both compassionate and pragmatic. Good move.
Well seeing as I just graduated from an American High School 2 months ago, I can give my experience.
At my High School, taking two consecutive years in the same language was compulsory for graduation. Being the typical Californian kid, I took Spanish (Castellano, as opposed to the other 4 languages on that peninsula), figuring it would be useful to me because Spanish is practically the primary language at our school .
Anyways, I took a liking to it. The only problem, as I think most American students with a genuine interest in foreign languages find, there are few people in the school legitimately interested in learning the language for learning the language's sake. Most kids are content to memorize the grammar and struggle their way through speaking tests with atrocious accents and barely-passing syntax. On the other hand, I actually took a liking to learning languages, and, finding I was rather proficient at learning languages, went the extra mile because I found it engaging. I talked in Spanish whenever possible, I tried to watch at least some Spanish television every day, (although, if news and soap operas aren't your cup of tea, you're really SoL ). But I went on to take 4 years of Spanish, and I'd say while I'm not quite fluent in the language, I'm probably about as close as I'm going to get without having someone to speak to and hear speak on a regular basis (i.e. immersion).
While taking Spanish, I began to develop an interest in linguistics and started plodding my way around other languages to get a grounding in them. I studied a little latin on my own time, a little Welsh here, a little Italian there, really whatever caught my interest. My 4 year in High School, just for fun, and because I had an extra slot, I decided to take French I (Our school only offers Spanish and French, as the German department closed the year after I started school...darn California budget!!). I find taking the second language, especially when both languages are related, is great fun. Comparing words and syntax and the like is to me one of the most fascinating things in the world.
Anyways I would probably consider me on the exterior of the norm. As I said before, most students have no intention of actually gaining fluency in the language (we are American, after all), although, with the major demographic changes we are experiencing here in America (especially in the Southwestern/Western States) That outlook on language may experience a rapid change.
As for me, I'm pursuing linguistics as a minor, and am itching to get the chance to study other languages at University (I at least want to learn Latin and Greek! ). And then I'm also hoping to study abroad in a year or two, most likely I'll go to Spain.
Well, I hope you find that helpful.
If he was there as an option, I would have voted for Ulysses S. Grant. Good general, but definitely one of the worst presidents ever. To be fair, it wasn't entirely his fault, he wasn't at all a bad guy. He just associated with the wrong people and tended to side with the wrong groups.
Now, as for the rest, I really don't think they are the best choices.
Buchanan: I've never understood why he is vilified. People don't like him because he didn't make an effort to prevent the South from rebelling. But that's what I don't understand. The South had been talking about rebelling, since the Constitution was signed (and before that they didn't want to sign the thing in the first place). So, I think the fact that he didn't take the threats seriously doesn't necesarily make him a bad president (maybe an inept one, but not a bad one.)
Nixon: Only really vilified because he got caught for doing, what, doubtless many Presidents did before him (cheat, extort, etc.) in a more subtle way. However, there were a lot of other things which he did that were good for the Country. If not for his skillful negotiating with the U.S.S.R and Communist China, one could argue we'd be in a much different political situation today. There's also the fact that he got us out of Vietnam. He also founded the EPA. So, much like Clinton, a decent presidency which was soiled in the last few months. (And mind you, I'm a democrat!)
Hoover: Once again, not a terrible president. He's been vilified because he failed to act immediately after the Stock Market Crash to stop the ensuing Depression. But, I mean you really can't blame him. The Depression had been building up over 10 years of an unregulated market run by rather unspectacular presidents heading a corrupt government. Hoover really only tried to perpetuate the policies of his predecessor on the assumption that the economy would correct itself. Remember at that time laissez-faire and Smithian Economics were really the only model (I suppose you could adopt socialism, if you wanted to be despised by the people, and, if The Soviet Union at that time was what was to be expected from Communism, run your nation in to the ground). I'm not saying Hoover was a great president, but certainly not among the worst. He's like LBJ; he got blamed for something which really wasn't his fault.
Bush: One can argue all day about the ineptitude of his economic policies, and how his nation lied to us, sent us into war on policies that weren't exactly clear, and sent us into the worst recession since the Great Depression. But I think, as others have said, it's much too early to pass judgment on him, although the fact that he left the office with the worst approval rating in the history of the Presidency (worse even than Nixon in the depths of the Watergate scandal 8-O ).
Been reading The Guns of August these past few weeks, and it's very true. It consistently astounds me how idiotic the whole thing was. The book says that von Moltke himself said that the war would probably last several years at the least, that the war would not be a repeat of 1870, and it would continue until one side's resources and manpower were totally expended, and yet as soon as he was put in charge, he seems to have thrown all of that out the window.
Oh, and I don't feel a need to mention le cran.
Owen Glyndwr said:Shaaaaaame. The lolpwning I got from Masada for this probably was the single most depressing experience I've ever had on the boards. As I recall I almost quit over it, and probably would have if it wasn't for #nes...
Owen those posts>my current ones.