Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by LeKinK

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by outfctrl

There is only one peace that  is widely understood:

This is what she should of been wearing

nuff said

 Anyone who believes in that motto is a lunatic.

Not that I approve of the picture but peace by superior force always existed and worked. 
 

 It's impossible.  It's not peace if you have to use superior firepower.  It's fear, intimidation, and/or violence.  The exact opposite of peace.

 

Seriously?  It doesn't say anywhere about using it.  The goal is to have superior firepower and hopefully never have to use it.

There's a famous quote by Josef Stalin that sums up pretty well the kind of world we live in and expresses perfectly the need for a powerful defense.  One of his advisors told him once that the Pope might not take too kindly to his harsh treatment of Catholics under his rule.  To which Stalin replied, "The Pope?  How many divisions has he got?"

Superior firepower is the only language some people understand.

If you have superior firepower that others know about, or at least think they know about.  You are using it.  You don't have to fire it for it to be useful.

Which is why I included fear and intimidation in there.

Having it is fine.  Pushing it in someone's face and telling them to behave is not.

Originally posted by LeKinK

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by outfctrl

There is only one peace that  is widely understood:

This is what she should of been wearing

nuff said

 

Anyone who believes in that motto is a lunatic.

Not that I approve of the picture but peace by superior force always existed and worked. 
 

 Yeah...like Vietnam....
 

Originally posted by BaronJuJu

Originally posted by LeKinK

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by outfctrl

There is only one peace that  is widely understood:

This is what she should of been wearing

nuff said

 

Anyone who believes in that motto is a lunatic.

Not that I approve of the picture but peace by superior force always existed and worked. 
 

 Yeah...like Vietnam....
 

Alright... like cold war..

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by outfctrl

There is only one peace that  is widely understood:

This is what she should of been wearing

nuff said

 Anyone who believes in that motto is a lunatic.

 

Does that go for Teddy Roosevelt as well, whose most famous motto was, "Speak softly and carry a big stick"?  To think we can be defenseless and remain safe and free is the lunacy.

Who said anything about being "defenseless"?

Jesus, you right wing whackjobs are in love with the idea of killing people.

---

Originally posted by deviliscious

As I stated above, pretty simple rules to follow, no need to cover them from head to toes silly.

"1. nothing too revealing, too tight fitting, or too loose or anything drawing unwanted attention.

2. clean, neat and un wrinkled.

Pretty easy rules to follow. If your hem line is more than a hands length above the knee, if it is too form fitting, or too loose, it is not suitable for dimplomatic ventures into other nations. What she wears hanging out with her friends at home is no business other than her parents and her own."

Why is that so hard?

 

---

I wonder if this meets your grooming standards. Here they are in Ghana.

If so, realize there is not much difference in that picture and the other one except shes not wearing shorts.

Your fashion scale is pretty ridiculous and quite picayune. Dems usually don't dress their kids like mini-CEOS as the Republicans do. To me, THIS is a crime to do to an 11 year old:

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Wickersham

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Wickersham

Her clothes are appropriate for a young girl touring the colosseum even when considering who her father is.  She is visiting a place not a person and her choice of clothes is better than, or at least inline with, the rest of the tourists.

As far as the comments on that site goes - they're way out of line, she's just a kid and there's no excuse for grown adults verbally attacking children.

That is a matter of opinion based on your culture, generation,  and how you were raised.  It is not considerate to other cultures or generations. According to my grandmother that attire would not have been acceptable for me to walk down the hallway in the middle of the night to get a glass of water with everyone sleeping, little lone going out in public.
 

I have worn much less than she is, but would not do so in such a public place, or in such a position of honor to my parents holding such a position in office. It is a matter of respect for your elders, your country, other cultures and other nations that should be taken into consideration in this matter. It is disrespectful not to, at least that was how I was raised. 

 

I was raised to dress for the occasion.

Your grandmother was able to set the terms of what was appropriate or not because it was her house.

In rome there are not such rules - the daughter was dressed properly for the occasion because her clothes reflected those of her fellow tourists.

As far as insulting other people's cultures as the foundation for how to dress properly - how far are you willing to take it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_sartorial_hijab

You have the potential to grant a minority too much power when you allow them to dictate how others should dress.

As I stated above,  pretty simple rules to follow, no need to cover them from head to toes silly.

"1. nothing too revealing, too tight fitting, or too loose or anything drawing unwanted attention.

2. clean, neat and un wrinkled.

Pretty easy rules to follow. If your hem line is more than a hands length above the knee, if it is too form fitting, or too loose, it is not suitable for dimplomatic ventures into other nations. What she wears hanging out with her friends at home is no business other than her parents and her own."

Why is that so hard?

If you look again at her clothes you'll see that they reflect your 2 point criteria:

1. nothing too revealing, too tight fitting, or too loose or anything drawing unwanted attention.

2. clean, neat and un wrinkled.

As a side note, that symbol is not really a direct symbol of peace, it's a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament logo.  She's probably wearing it to underline her father's recent discussions to reduce Russia and America's nuclear stockpile.  So, it's probably not by coincidence that she was wearing those printed shirts, and as long as she's wearing informal attire, the shorts are appropriate.

To the OP I went to check out the link you provided and for some reason the Admin pulled it. Cencorship really PISSES ME OFF just for the record. So why did this sites Admins pull the link? If it was because it was offensive that is even more reason to keep it up. That way we as semi  intelligent human beings can make semi  intelligent decisions as to what we think is right and wrong and discuss the issue. It's hard to have freedom of speech when we are being CENCORED!!

As far as her pic  she's wearing a  t-shirt with a 'peace' sign on it. She looks like your average kid to me. I wonder why that is...maybe her parents want her to be an 'average' kid in some aspect Instead of FORCING her to act like an adult.

As far as adults go... what's up with adults being hostile  towards a child wearing a t-shirt with a peace sign? Quite the irony there.  Keep in mind SHE is not the one that ran for office. Let the kid be a kid.

It doesn't take any guts for an adult to criticize a kid wearing a t-shirt with a peace sign on it. To those who do - your pathetic.  So why would the  Admin censor us and not allow us to see how vile  adults can be towards a child? Does this Admin agree with adults verbally assaulting children wearing t-shirts with peace signs? By censoring us and not allowing us to create our OWN informed decisions, we can only speculate.

As much as I agree with you (and I do, with everything you said), poster above; I hate it when people put PERIOD at the end of their sentence, I never understood why. We know that it's the end of the sentence by virtue of the fact that there is, indeed, a small dot there.

Originally posted by Praetoriani

As much as I agree with you (and I do, with everything you said), poster above; I hate it when people put PERIOD at the end of their sentence, I never understood why. We know that it's the end of the sentence by virtue of the fact that there is, indeed, a small dot there.

What's funny is that after I posted and reread what I said I thought it looked rather dumb myself. While you were posting your message I was editing mine. No more PERIODS, just my opinions.

As far as the small dot though, sometime it just needs to be bigger, LIKE THIS, to emphasise something, IMHO.

That this is seriously a subject that people feel warrents this type of discussion only leads me to believe that people have way too much time on their hands.

Originally posted by clwoods

That this is seriously a subject that people feel warrents this type of discussion only leads me to believe that people have way too much time on their hands.

Is this supposed to be ironic?

Originally posted by sniperg

Not really. Ever heard of "attrition war"? Even if one country managed by sheer force of firepower to "take over", it would need double that army to maintain stability over the region.

Peace through conquest historically has never been achieved.

Tell that to the Carthaginians.......

Originally posted by lvlanoob

Originally posted by Praetoriani

As much as I agree with you (and I do, with everything you said), poster above; I hate it when people put PERIOD at the end of their sentence, I never understood why. We know that it's the end of the sentence by virtue of the fact that there is, indeed, a small dot there.

What's funny is that after I posted and reread what I said I thought it looked rather dumb myself. While you were posting your message I was editing mine. No more PERIODS, just my opinions.

As far as the small dot though, sometime it just needs to be bigger, LIKE THIS, to emphasise something, IMHO.

I didn't mean to personally attack you or anything too. I just had to share one of my pet peeves with the world. A similar one is when people write 'hands down' at the end of a sentence. I mean, what does that even mean?

Originally posted by Praetoriani

Originally posted by lvlanoob

Originally posted by Praetoriani

As much as I agree with you (and I do, with everything you said), poster above; I hate it when people put PERIOD at the end of their sentence, I never understood why. We know that it's the end of the sentence by virtue of the fact that there is, indeed, a small dot there.

What's funny is that after I posted and reread what I said I thought it looked rather dumb myself. While you were posting your message I was editing mine. No more PERIODS, just my opinions.

As far as the small dot though, sometime it just needs to be bigger, LIKE THIS, to emphasise something, IMHO.

 

I didn't mean to personally attack you or anything too. I just had to share one of my pet peeves with the world. A similar one is when people write 'hands down' at the end of a sentence. I mean, what does that even mean?

My pet peeve phrase is "'nuf said". As if that is the definitive answer to any and all discussions or debates.

Originally posted by keltic1701

Originally posted by Praetoriani

Originally posted by lvlanoob

Originally posted by Praetoriani

As much as I agree with you (and I do, with everything you said), poster above; I hate it when people put PERIOD at the end of their sentence, I never understood why. We know that it's the end of the sentence by virtue of the fact that there is, indeed, a small dot there.

What's funny is that after I posted and reread what I said I thought it looked rather dumb myself. While you were posting your message I was editing mine. No more PERIODS, just my opinions.

As far as the small dot though, sometime it just needs to be bigger, LIKE THIS, to emphasise something, IMHO.

 

I didn't mean to personally attack you or anything too. I just had to share one of my pet peeves with the world. A similar one is when people write 'hands down' at the end of a sentence. I mean, what does that even mean?

My pet peeve phrase is "'nuf said". As if that is the definitive answer to any and all discussions or debates.

A Mod needs to Come in and lock this thread with Nuff Said in the coment Box ;p

Heck its fairly well Derailed at this point ;p

Originally posted by Praetoriani

As much as I agree with you (and I do, with everything you said), poster above; I hate it when people put PERIOD at the end of their sentence, I never understood why. We know that it's the end of the sentence by virtue of the fact that there is, indeed, a small dot there.

I actually like the word PERIOD.

(used by a speaker or writer to indicate that a decision is irrevocable or that a point is no longer discussable):

I forbid you to go, period.

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Praetoriani

As much as I agree with you (and I do, with everything you said), poster above; I hate it when people put PERIOD at the end of their sentence, I never understood why. We know that it's the end of the sentence by virtue of the fact that there is, indeed, a small dot there.

 

I actually like the word PERIOD.

(used by a speaker or writer to indicate that a decision is irrevocable or that a point is no longer discussable):

I forbid you to go, period.

I guess, perhaps in that context, e.g. used by a figure of authority, I would not have much of a problem with it. It's just very inappropriate to use in an intelligent debate with equals.

Sorry for derailing. I felt it was fun to hear other people's opinion on it, but didn't think it'd warrent its own topic.

Originally posted by Praetoriani

Originally posted by lvlanoob

Originally posted by Praetoriani

As much as I agree with you (and I do, with everything you said), poster above; I hate it when people put PERIOD at the end of their sentence, I never understood why. We know that it's the end of the sentence by virtue of the fact that there is, indeed, a small dot there.

What's funny is that after I posted and reread what I said I thought it looked rather dumb myself. While you were posting your message I was editing mine. No more PERIODS, just my opinions.

As far as the small dot though, sometime it just needs to be bigger, LIKE THIS, to emphasise something, IMHO.

 

I didn't mean to personally attack you or anything too. I just had to share one of my pet peeves with the world. A similar one is when people write 'hands down' at the end of a sentence. I mean, what does that even mean?

Yea I understand where your coming from. Sometimes saying the word 'period' in a sentence is better than actually typing it. Which is why after I posted and reread it I thought it looked dumb myself hehe.
 

Back to the subject at hand, I'm still absolutely bewildered that adults would lash out at a kid for wearing a t-shirt with a 'peace' sign on it. C'MON PEOPLE, GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!!!

Originally posted by slaphappy33

Originally posted by Zindaihas

 Does that go for Teddy Roosevelt as well, whose most famous motto was, "Speak softly and carry a big stick"?  To think we can be defenseless and remain safe and free is the lunacy.

 

you right wing whackjobs are in love with the idea of killing people.

Boy, this guy's got me pegged to a tee.  Death all around is my philosophy.  Death to everyone.  The more the better.

Just like Ronald Reagan.  Elect him president and he would blow up the world, his critics said.  And that's exactly what happened.  The destruction started as soon as he took office.  Oh...wait...

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by slaphappy33

Originally posted by Zindaihas

 Does that go for Teddy Roosevelt as well, whose most famous motto was, "Speak softly and carry a big stick"?  To think we can be defenseless and remain safe and free is the lunacy.

 

you right wing whackjobs are in love with the idea of killing people.

 

Boy, this guy's got me pegged to a tee.  Death all around is my philosophy.  Death to everyone.  The more the better.

Just like Ronald Reagan.  Elect him president and he would blow up the world, his critics said.  And that's exactly what happened.  The destruction started as soon as he took office.  Oh...wait...

Nah, Reagan just worsened the class warfare in this country. The real killing didn't start until Bush II.