Free Fire Zone ~ December 08

Written by Christianity and the Confusion on December 4th, 2008

                                                       

   This is the Free Fire Zone message board for December. The previous ones can be found by using the search engine located below the Google/dictionary box, by doing a search of “Free Fire Zone” you will be able to see all previous ones.  Feel free to reply to any post there or restart the thread here.

 


   This message board is for posting what ever you like.   Here all are welcome, you do not need to be registered to be able to post, but by registering you guaranty that no one else will use your screen name. If you would like find a previous FFZ just use the search engine under the google to the side.  Feel free to copy and paste anything from one of the other months or post to it there, people will be able to see that you have made a reply by looking at the recent posts.  To start a new thread click on the Post a comment you can gave that thread a title by replacing the Free Fire Zone with your title. I hope you all enjoy this page.


                                                      

 

23 Comments so far ↓

  1. Anonymous says:

       This is a subject that I would like to explore, what brings the most fear to your heart? If you are too embarrassed to say just post anonymously.

  2. Anonymous says:

       In the former Soviet Union there are many who wish to return to the days of Communism. For some odd reason they find those days of little freedom preferable. This is not unique to the Russians for in Iraq there are many people who would rather be living under the dictatorship of Hussein than under their newly found freedom. Even if everything was running perfectly, there still would be those who would choose to live with tyranny than to be free. I find it puzzling that anyone who prefer to live in a society where the police could disappear you for just making a harmless comment about the dictator. If you can put politics aside for a moment, please answer this question as to why would anyone prefer to live with tyranny?

  3. Anonymous says:

    If someone knows only one thing for years and years…then is suddenly introduced to something completely different, most times they will want to go back to the way it was in the past.
    I've heard it said that the people that have been in prison most of their lives, most of them will comit another crime to get back in. It's what they have known almost all their life, and their new freedom scares the hell out of them.
    In wildness is the preservation of the world

  4. Anonymous says:

    Despite the propaganda democracy is not universally desired or sought after. The Russians had about 10 years of democracy, and that coincided with the nadir of their power, prestige and economic well-being. It was a period when criminals took over the economy, and young Russian girls looked forward to growing up and becoming prostitutes.
    And you wonder why they might not like democracy?
    Then look at the American attempts to impose “democracy” through force; South Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq… great successes, all of them.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I like the look of this December's FFZ, all the Christmas stuff you know. It's a nice touch.
    Jess

  6. Anonymous says:

    I would say rape, murder and the loss of my family.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Some people are more scared of change and the unknown. I know it's so crazy to think that anyone would choose to go back to that type of life, but some times people are so frighten by what might be that they will choose a known tyranny over an unknown one.

  8. Anonymous says:

    It is pragmatism in some cultures.
    The Anglo-Celtic Nations (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland) and France have a culture that even in ancient times was marked by individuality and personal freedom. Celts were ridiculed by the Romans for having periodic parliaments including women to elect Kings.
    The American Revolution was ironically against the Empire that allowed the most freedom (after Netherlands. We are a people with a 2000 plus year history of dissent, individuality, and that made us disunited to the point that allowed Teutons to conquer us. But we culturally conquered the Teutonic English and they are now like us.
    Russia has no democratic cultural history. It began as collections of harsh war lords in Eastern Europe. Rulers were cruel and people cowed. Then they were conquered and ruled by the Mongols for a few more centuries. Independence led to harsh autocratic princes followed by one from Vladimir conquered the other princes establishing an autocratic Russian Empire.
    It may be that they are even genetically more comfortable and culturally adapted to autocracy. Celts are still argumentative, dissenting, intolerant of tyranny. I think that the major thing that destroyed George Bush was not the Iraq War, Terrorism, or economy. It was the stepwise loss of private freedoms and Patriot Acts enacted supposedly to combat foreign tyranny/terrorism. This finally woke up Americans to the threat of Crypto-fascism under the guise of God, Patriotism, law and order.
    For Russians they were happy until they found out that they were totally unprepared to live in a Free market. They miss the good old days of the USSR. No worry, no thinking, just obey and they will feed you.
    Amergin

  9. Anonymous says:

    Is this a trick question?
    Are you making a statement about people who prefer an oppressive religion to one that is more open or tolerant?

  10. Anonymous says:

       No tricks here, I am asking why people will act against their best interests and subject themselves to a life of tyranny. I think back to my youth and how it always surprised me that seemingly intelligent girls with a lot on the ball (including being good looking) would find themselves in one abusive relationship after another. I never have understood how a woman can go back to a man that beats her. In fact, this maybe a tricky question in that there is no clear answer, but this is the same subject as that of those other two examples.

  11. Anonymous says:

    As a woman I think this is another case of the media making a story out of nothing. I saw no sexism here and think that Campbell Brown is showing her bias. The thing is that there is so much sexism in politics, the media and real life that no one needs to make it up like Campbell is doing here. What it does is to make it harder to fight the real thing.

    A note to all politicians: if you're speaking next to a microphone, be careful what you say. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell may wish he thought about that while he was having a conversation near the lectern at the National Governors Conference in Philadelphia Tuesday.
    In video obtained by CNN, Rendell was discussing Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano — President-elect Barack Obama's choice to lead the Homeland Security Department — and said she has excellent qualifications for the job since she “has no family.”
    “Janet's perfect for that job. Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote, literally, 19-20 hours a day to it,” said Rendell, whose comments were picked up by the open mike.
    Rendell apologized for the comments Wednesday and said, “What I meant is that Janet is a person who works 24/7, just like me.” But in a commentary the night before, CNN's Campbell Brown admonishes Rendell.

  12. Anonymous says:

    People are a combination of many talents most of which we do badly. And for some of us, we don't have any talent at all. And then there is always the Stockholm hostage effect, and masochism.
    Shalom

  13. Anonymous says:

    Freedom can be divided into 'freedom from' and 'freedom to'. In Communist Russia, people were 'free from' street crime (muggings etc.), partly because they were not 'free to' walk the streets at night. They were not 'free to' pursue their own careers, but they were 'free from' unemployment.
    Under Communism, everybody was given 4 weeks paid vacation every year. After working several years of 80 hour weeks trying to get ahead under dog-eat-dog capitalism, only to get eaten by a bigger dog, maybe communism wasn't so bad after all. They knew how to work the old system, and now the rules have changed.
    It could also be some nostalgia. Life was always better in the 'good old days', no matter how bad those days were.

  14. Anonymous says:

    As a traditional Conservative I think the Auto bailout is on the whole unnecessary and I agree with Romney and Huckabee that it needs to be stopped. It is the most unconservative thing ever.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Where's the sense in any of this? The only “sense” is that the senate “makes no sense” . . . . What makes sense is for “big business” to cut some “wasteful” day-to-day unnecessary expenses and for the senate to rescind CRA, Sarbanes-Oxley and the SEC needs to do something about mark-to-market . . . . Anyway, whatever, NO BAILOUTS!!! NO BUSINESS WELFARE, NO RESCUE PACKAGES, whatever they want to call it–it's rewarding people for at the very least . . . legislation and business “errors”!!! Bad business and “government” (elected officials) practices! Lots of job losses have already taken place–there will be more–and, in light of all the unemployment that's already taken place and the promise of more to come, CEOs and senators need to “get real” about their own incomes, benefits . . . .

  16. Anonymous says:

    Of course it was sexism Dear, that's the trouble with the left, they can't admit that things like that are in the democrat party.

  17. Anonymous says:

    and Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Chuck Baldwin, Elizabeth Dole, Mary Landreau, and Russ Feingold (!)
    Soak the taxpayers to bailout rich bankers, and soak them some more to prop up companies that have been grossly mismanaged for years.
    Hey, my DVD player broke after only a year, and I bet on the wrong Derby horse. Do I get a bailout?
    My company has been hurt by slow retail & tight credit. Anyone going to give me a pile of money, up front, with little accountability?
    I think not.

  18. Anonymous says:

    President Obama… Need I say more?

  19. Anonymous says:

    Yeah Jack, what would be scary is if Barack Obama wasn't the Pesident-Elect.

  20. Anonymous says:

    I think that you're overlooking one thing, self-confidence. People who stay or choose to live like that don't have any self-confidence. They keep telling themselves that it will get better, but it never does. I think that people forget too quickly how bad it was and are too quick to go back to those bad conditions when things get tough.

  21. Anonymous says:

    I heard the news today that Obama is going to be sworn in using his full name, Barack Hussein Obama. This is going to drive the right-wing nutcases over the edge! I heard one guy saying that this was a great way to defuse a right-wing talking point. This is a tool used by many to take the power out of an insult by embracing the name that is meant to be an insult. African-Americans embraced the N word for this very reason and in doing so drove the racists nuts. You've heard them whine, “Why is it ok for them to use the N word but not us?” These bigots were angry because their insult had become powerless. In the same way gays are using the word fag and removing the sting. Some say that this is what Obama is doing by using his full name to be sworn in on, but I think that there might be something else to it. The great and powerful Presidents have come to be known by their initials (FDR, JFK and even LBJ) I think that Obama would rather be known as BHO than BO.

  22. Anonymous says:

    I don't know about your conclusion but I think you're right about the part of taking away the power point of using his middle name from the right.

  23. Anonymous says:

    I read this article that I think that everyone should read.

    This is how it starts.
    When Hillary Clinton announced in November 1999 that she was running for the U.S. Senate to replace the legendary Sen. Patrick Moynihan of New York, she never had cast a single vote as an elected officeholder. She never had put forth an agenda that the voters could use to decide whether she was the best candidate.
    Her résumé? First lady. Lawyer. Advocate for health care and children's issues. That's it.
    But when she made it clear that she was going to seek the job, the New York Democratic congressional delegation stepped aside, bowing to the wishes of the first lady, who barely had lived in New York state long enough to figure out where to find a great slice of pizza. Even Rep. Nita Lowey, who had spent 10 years in the House of Representatives and was considered the front-runner for the Senate seat, bowed out to accommodate the wishes of Clinton.
    So here we are nine years later, and there is a huge fuss over Caroline Kennedy's decision to let New York Gov. David Paterson know that she desires the job.
    It's rather pathetic to listen to the naysayers deride Kennedy's past accomplishments and dismiss them as if she were a spoiled rich kid from a family who has bounced from Paris to Monaco to Dubai, living the high life, all of a sudden deciding that she wants to ride the Kennedy name into elected office.
    Rep.
    Gary Ackerman of New York did his best to dismiss Kennedy's qualifications by saying that “she has name recognition, but so does J. Lo.” Even Sen. Clinton's rabid supporters are trying to scuttle Kennedy's bid, still angry because Kennedy endorsed then-Sen. Barack Obama over their candidate for president. Frankly, it's time you got the hell over it. Read more

Leave a Comment