Originally posted by ScriabinApparently the PDUP agrees with me.
and you are a power hungry megalomaniac willing to say anything to maintain your fantasy that you are some sort of freedom fighter or even a member of that group of Arabs that lives in the West Bank.
You were born a Jordanian, and know you are an American.
You are also mentally ill.
Originally posted by Scriabinscherzo-phrenic! Haha, I should have picked another name.
he is a pathological liar, has a histrionic personality disorder, and may also be schizophrenic.
perhaps he will either seek treatment or go to his alleged homeland and get himself the treatment he deserves there -- Inshallah!
1 edit
Originally posted by scherzoSo you want to claim rights to two countries? Surely if you are serious about your claims you should renounce your US citizen ship as a matter of honor? Otherwise you are essentially 'occupying','invading' the US. You do not own any land in the US. You can't, it is not your homeland.
When my Lebanese passport expired, I was a US citizen. I still am.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe US doesn't work like that.
So you want to claim rights to two countries? Surely if you are serious about your claims you should renounce your US citizen ship as a matter of honor? Otherwise you are essentially 'occupying','invading' the US. You do not own any land in the US. You can't, it is not your homeland.
Originally posted by scherzoin the U.K. it depends, some countries allow you to hold duel nationality, like Pakistan, you can have a Pakistani passport and a British passport, but others like India require either one or the other. I tried when I was living in Islamabad to get a Pakistani passport, I waited in line at the urging of those present, but was eventually found out, something to do with blond hair and blue eyes, i dunno!
The US doesn't work like that.
I am sorry that people speak to you like this Scherzo dude, they feel empowered on the net, to say things that they would never dream of saying to your face!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIgnore scherzo, he's a sick guy.
in the U.K. it depends, some countries allow you to hold duel nationality, like Pakistan, you can have a Pakistani passport and a British passport, but others like India require either one or the other. I tried when I was living in Islamabad to get a Pakistani passport, I waited in line at the urging of those present, but was eventually found out, so ...[text shortened]... hey feel empowered on the net, to say things that they would never dream of saying to your face!
Tell me about Pakistan -- I'm in the middle of Three Cups of Tea, about the Central Asia Institute and Greg Mortenson.
What, if anything, can you tell me about Mortenson.
Lacking that, I would like to hear anything at all about your experience there, what life is like, etc.
I find the account of life in Baltistan fascinating.
I am more worried about both Pakistan and India facing off with nuclear weapons than I am about even North Korea.
I've thought of working up a graphic on the relative levels of danger to the survival of the human species where two of the major variables would be 1. having nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them; and 2. the degree of irrationality of those who actually possess the weapons.
Rational people know the consequences of using these nukes. I'm not sure some of those who either have them or are close to getting them are rational at all.
Originally posted by Scriabini will tell all when i come back my friend, i got to go out and will be away best part of the day, by I warn its a tradgedy of Shakespearean proportions.
Ignore scherzo, he's a sick guy.
Tell me about Pakistan -- I'm in the middle of Three Cups of Tea, about the Central Asia Institute and Greg Mortenson.
What, if anything, can you tell me about Mortenson.
Lacking that, I would like to hear anything at all about your experience there, what life is like, etc.
I find the account of life in Baltistan ...[text shortened]... ot sure some of those who either have them or are close to getting them are rational at all.
Originally posted by scherzoDid I say anything about how the US worked? Or do you simply not want to face the fact that you are a hypocrite? If you honestly believe that you have rights to Israel based on your heritage and that anyone who moved there from other countries has no right to be there then you should apply the same logic to your stay in the US. You should then respect the rights of those who own the American soil and you should leave immediately as you have no right to be there. Otherwise you are simply a hypocrite.
The US doesn't work like that.
Or are you making the ridiculous argument that different parts of the world 'work' differently when it comes to land and residence rights? And I am not talking about politically but rather some inherent property of the land in question (obviously politically you have no right to Israel whatsoever).
Originally posted by ScriabinScriabin, you can ignore me. In fact I would welcome it. But my voice will be heard by people less close-minded than you.
Ignore scherzo, he's a sick guy.
Tell me about Pakistan -- I'm in the middle of Three Cups of Tea, about the Central Asia Institute and Greg Mortenson.
What, if anything, can you tell me about Mortenson.
Lacking that, I would like to hear anything at all about your experience there, what life is like, etc.
I find the account of life in Baltistan ...[text shortened]... ot sure some of those who either have them or are close to getting them are rational at all.
Originally posted by twhiteheadoh, make no mistake. the Bushies put on a good act to energize their fruitcake base. Obama is putting on a good act to energize his.
I never considered Bush nor the people who voted for him particularly rational - yet he had nukes.
It all comes down to the same thing, though, in the end: big money interests.
In Bush's case, he was the designated suit for the energy industries.
In Obama's case, he is more directly tied to Wall St and unions.
I say this because the so-called mortgage aid program his Administration provides does everything except that which would achieve its ostensible purpose in lowering the number of foreclosures among the middle class.
This is the case, as reported widely this week, because none of the so-called aid to homeowners comes in the form of lowered monthly payments.
Wouldn't you realize up front that renegotiating a loan that does not result in a lower monthly payment means those who are having trouble making their payments now will still have that trouble after the so-called aid?
The aid package so far helps only one group: the Wall St and banking guys who caused this mess.
Obama's Treasury Sec is a fraud.
1 edit
Originally posted by ScriabinBut generally Obama seems more rational than Bush - whatever his actual motives for particular decisions.
The aid package so far helps only one group: the Wall St and banking guys who caused this mess.
Obama's Treasury Sec is a fraud.
I have not followed very closely the US's monetary maneuvers, but from what I recall, the purpose of the stimulus (or whatever it is called) was to bail out Wall St because the US govt is afraid that if wall st collapses, foreign investors will loose faith in the dollar and the US will be gone overnight.
Or are you saying it is helping the bankers but not the banks?
On a side not, if it was not all happening at once and thus damaging the world economy, I would have said let those who took out mortgages bigger than they could swallow, deal with it on their own, and let those who invested in Wall St take the hit. After all everybody knows that there is risk involved in the stock market, it is a bit stupid to pretend that when it goes up all is well but when it goes down we should bail them out. That takes away the whole risk aspect - and encourages further 'risk' taking.
Originally posted by twhiteheadyes, Obama is quite rational.
But generally Obama seems more rational than Bush - whatever his actual motives for particular decisions.
I have not followed very closely the US's monetary maneuvers, but from what I recall, the purpose of the stimulus (or whatever it is called) was to bail out Wall St because the US govt is afraid that if wall st collapses, foreign investors will loo ...[text shortened]... bail them out. That takes away the whole risk aspect - and encourages further 'risk' taking.
I remain a skeptic, politics being what it is.