WarriorCleric Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Maybe it's a little out of the spirit of the event, but I am bragging just a little that I am going to see the Dalai Lama. Seriously though, it's pretty cool that UB, a state school, get's big name personas like Colin Powell, Conan O'Brian, and now the ****in Dalai Lama. The event is pretty cool, the campus is shutting down for the day, and some of the Lamas are holding a few open classes on meditation, spirituality, various ways to interpert what the Dalai Said, and there are other panels on related topics, Science and Spirituality, Music and Life, and all those kinds of things, aswell as an interfaith service by the Dalai Lama himself. I'm really looking forward to this, it's fixing up to be a really amazing day. WC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiere Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Yeah, that looks friggin' awesome! I'm pretty jealous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 I suppose this would be the wrong place for "Tina, come get some ham!" jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EtsoShex Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 "Tina, come get some holy, reincarnated ham!" But seriously, I envy you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfman Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 I know I'm going to sound like a jerk off for saying this, but what's so great about the Dalai Lama? Is his coming to the school so great because he's a well known, but still esoteric figure? Because not many people ever get to see him? As far as envy goes, I'm far more envious that you got the chance to see Colin Powell, but whatever floats your boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfdude Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 I've seen him at a uw madison speaking event. very cool. and I was loling about the colin powell comment wolfman, but whatever floats your boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mya Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Arent there like 2 dai Lamas ? One from china and another from tibete ? As a mean of the democratic republic of china to control religion ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfdude Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 I don't know about that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Hippo Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Ok I really do want to rain on your parade, but he came to the University of Texas last year and all the tickets were given away (No way the freakin Dala Lama was gonna charge). So then all the tickets that were re-sold by the students to other studends for ****loads of money $400. Then just to be ironic and making sure that the Dala Lama got free seating and all that stuff. It ended up that the ticket was useless... You would just show up to the Erwin Center showed a Student ID and they let you in no questions asked. So If you don't mind tell me how it ends up in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorCleric Posted September 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 I know I'm going to sound like a jerk off for saying this' date=' but what's so great about the Dalai Lama? Is his coming to the school so great because he's a well known, but still esoteric figure? Because not many people ever get to see him?[/quote'] Let me ask you what's so great about colin powell? It was an alright show, but that's all it really was, a show. He didn't say anything that we didn't hear on television, it was pro-party bull**** with a little bit of apology, but still nice to hear it from the source in person. Secretaries of State are replaced as they are needed, UB has had two before Colin come to speak, it was alright. Conan O'Brian was a much better speaker, he talked to the students, the audience learned from him, he told us things you don't get on his show, he had an open answer forum where people could ask him anything (some really akward gay kid made some uncomfortable passes) and he answered all questions openly. Colin told us how things were, Conan told how things were for him and how things could be for us. Colin offered students an idea for a job oppertunity in the state department, the big thing UB took away from him? 'Speak another language well, go work for the state department.' Conan offered people an idea that they could be happy and successful, that they could achieve whatever they wanted if they worked for it. After Colin, people were talking about it for a day or two. It took weeks for people to spot talking about conan, and not just his funnies. If I wanted to hear about current and past political runnings, I could turn on C-SPAN, If I wanted to hear some really amazing humor, I could turn on late night, infact if I turned onto late night television on the right night I could get both from the same show. You goto the Distinguished Speaker series to get something you don't from anywhere else, otherwise there really is no point, this isn't live music, it isn't an intellectual rock show, these are events meant to be 'unique and unavailable elsewhere', and 'enchance the quality of the student body' in some way. It's kinda insulting to the people showing up if you pour out the same rhetoric that you give to anyone else if you promise to come to the event. Conan understood this, Colin didn't. As far as the Dalai Lama, perhaps because he is an exiled leader of a nation occupied by another country? Perhaps because he's been in this leadership role of the 'country' since he was 15(not given the title, he had that, but started working, including negotiations with the invading country, and has always been looking for a diplomatic end, even making consession bordering on the rape of his culture)? Perhaps because has been awarded the nobel peace prize? Perhaps because he is an acomplished author with over 25 books, none of which were dribble. Perhaps because he is the supreme head of tibetan buddhism? (His roll is comparable to the Archbishop or the Pope) And despite all this positions that give him this power and control, he has not duped anyone, he has not lost his control, and has continued to act in the best interest in not just his people, but all people he has an affect on. So he is the spiritual leader of a religion... popeish. He is the leader of a country... presidentish He is a renown author... Stephen Kingish... but with nonfiction. He a nobel peace prize winner... niceguyish His topic, speech, whatever, will be on peace across borders, understanding, acceptance and happyness. Not about how certain people, countries, ideologies are wrong(well in a way I guess, but willfully hurting people isn't really right for anyone but a despot), not about being successful or how great he is for how great the wonderful world of science is. I guess I really shouldn't prejudge talk, but yeah, The Lama floats my boat, so did Colin and so did Conan. But just because I'm not a buddhist, because I'm not tibetin, because this guy has all the things comendable to his character, a reason to see him is because he is a well known figure, who is comming to your school and you get to see him for free, and it's not that many people don't get to see him, it's that many people don't take the oppurtunity. Exposing yourself to multiple viewpoints and cultures for the source is never a bad thing, helps you make informed choices. And the fact that people consider him esoteric is really sad, there is no reason this guy should be some great secret, he doesn't try to be, he doesn't willfully hide away, he's just far to compationate far to often for the limelight. That's probably why the world is the **** hole it is right now, because most people don't give a damn about anyone else but there own, unless it's flashy and cool! And noone is raining on my parade unless they take away my ticket. I know he's been to alot of other unis, and if you notice the 'Seriously' that tends to mean that everything before it was not serious, possibly... sarcastic? I'm just sharing good news, god forbid someone post something not about the game in the OOC forum that doesn't contain a link to collegehumor sites about bad mothers. WC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfman Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 I'll accept all of your points except the ones I'm going to refute () First of all, the Nobel Peace Prize is a total joke, nowadays, anyway. If you want I can provide you with a list to prove it. Regardless, at present it is given away more for subverting the interests of the US and its allies than anything else. As a matter of fact, Ahmadinej(ih)ad probably in the running for it this year. Second of all, on Colin Powell, it's not pro party bullsh*t, it's what he believes, and the fact that you dissagree doesn't change that. Also, as for his replacement, that wasn't because he wasn't needed, it's because he was using inappropriate channels to air his concerns. Any president would have done it. And what's so great about him? Well, aside from being the first black Secretary of State, he was also the youngest chairmen of the Joint Chiefs. I would say that's pretty noteworthy. I would want to see him because I like him and I want to know what he has to say, but if like you said, his speech was basically an advertisement for the State Department, then yeah, that would be a negative. Also, how is being an exiled head of state that was willing to make appeasement level concessions to an aggressor anywhere near a good thing? Isn't anything worth fighting for anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfdude Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 oh and wolf, I like powell, I just believe that the dali lama has alot more to say than him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 First of all' date=' the Nobel Peace Prize is a total joke, nowadays, anyway. If you want I can provide you with a list to prove it. Regardless, at present it is given away more for subverting the interests of the US and its allies than anything else. As a matter of fact, Ahmadinej(ih)ad probably in the running for it this year.[/quote'] Right now, the US is no where near peaceful. In fact, Bush has stated many times that he is a "War President." A bit anti-peaceful, eh? Don't act like the US even listens to the UN anymore, so don't put the two together. Right now, more countries(the citizens) hate the US than ever. Except our few really close allies. Second of all' date=' on Colin Powell, it's not pro party bullsh*t, it's what he believes, and the fact that you dissagree doesn't change that. Also, as for his replacement, that wasn't because he wasn't needed, it's because he was using inappropriate channels to air his concerns. Any president would have done it. And what's so great about him? Well, aside from being the first black Secretary of State, he was also the youngest chairmen of the Joint Chiefs. I would say that's pretty noteworthy. Yeah thats cool. Also' date=' how is being an exiled head of state that was willing to make appeasement level concessions to an aggressor anywhere near a good thing? Isn't anything worth fighting for anymore?[/quote']So you want that country to declare war and get annihilated? Not to mention the possibilities of another World War that could occur as a result. Honestly, this whole thing negates what you first said about the nobel peace prize being a joke. Maybe after they declare war, they could declare a couple more so they can be cool like the US and just look for wars to jump into. Bleh, i'm so disappointed in the US for electing that retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfman Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Right now' date=' the US is no where near peaceful. In fact, Bush has stated many times that he is a "War President." A bit anti-peaceful, eh?[/quote'] Guess what? When you are acting all peaceful when everyone around you is looking for a fight, you get your *ss kicked. Five years isn't so long that you should have forgotten by now. Now, explain this to me, right before the Iraq invasion, the UN passed a resolution demanding that Iraq stop screwing around or else. You know what? Iraq didn't stop screwing around, so the US invaded, we said we would, the UN even gave reason to believe that they would, but we did it, and we got b*tched at. The UN is worthless, but more on that later, here's the list: 2005: The IAEA, and Mohammed Elbaredai, in specific, because they went along with Saddam's dog and pony show instead of actually doing what they were supposed to be doing. Because of their ineptitude, we invaded, only to find that Saddam didn't have anything, he was just trying to piss us off. 2002: Jimmuh Friggin' Carter, for being one of the worst US presidents and being the worst former president. To get his prize, Jimmy Cracked Corn went to Saudi Arabia and, if I recall correctly, complained about the lack of freedom in America. I don't know if you realize this, but Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive societies on Earth. When people mention all the joys of Sharia law, you know, like girls being killed for getting raped, or people being put to death for leaving Islam, this is the place they are talking about. Note: To be honest, I'm not sure if he did that before or after he got the prize, but either way, it was that kind of thing that got it for him. 2001: The UN and Kofi Annan in particular, for legitimizing every despot who ever seized power by force. I don't know if you've ever seen Team America (I haven't, but want to), anyway, there is an exchange in that movie that is a perfect description of what the UN is. And here it is: Kim Jong Il: Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans? Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else. Kim Jong Il: Or else what? Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are. Exactly. The UN is big on talk, small on action. By recognizing and giving a vote to nations such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia, and China (nations that, to varying degrees, are unelected and oppresive), it makes them equivalent to countries like The US (don't even start, freakazoids), Britain, Isreal, and Japan (nations whose leaders are elected by the people and can be replaced by the same people). I could go on, and on, and on, but perhaps I'll save that for another time. You're welcome. 1990: Mikhail Gorbachev, I really can't think of why they would give it to him, especially for ending the Cold War (it didn't 'end', it was won, by Reagan and Thatcher). Then again, given that most leftists would rather gouge out their own eyes than say anything positive about Reagan that they don't have to, I can see why they decided to rewrite history in this case. 1988: The UN Peacekeeping Forces, surely this must be some kind of sick joke. The UN Peacekeepers got a Nobel Prize? I rest my case. The group that literally sat by and watched as the Tutsis in Rwanda got slaughtered, without lifting a finger to stop it? The group that now trades food for sex with preteens in the Congo? There's really nothing more that I can say than that. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194655,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4252405.stm And then there's my personal favorite: 1994: Awarded jointly to Shimon Perez, Yitzhak Rabin (as a precursor to the suicide policy of unilateral disengagement) and Yassir Arafat, one of the world's most notorious terrorists, the spiritual grandfather of 9/11 (as he came up with the idea of highjacking planes). These three were awarded the prize for the Oslo Accord, which demanded that Isreal pull out of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, in return the Palestinians were required to make empty promises that they would recognize Isreal's right to exist and renounce terrorism (they didn't, and never had any intention of it). Sounds to me like the Nobel Peace Prize is poorly named. Maybe they should have called it the Nobel Surrender Prize. Don't act like the US even listens to the UN anymore' date=' so don't put the two together. Right now, more countries(the citizens) hate the US than ever. Except our few really close allies.[/quote'] I don't know what you're talking about, I didn't even mention the UN in that post. As a matter of fact, I'm darn glad we don't listen to the UN. By the way, the job of the President of the United States is to protect our national interests, not pander to international opinion. If the interests of this country are best served by fighting our enemies, it is the president's job to make it so. That's why his title is POTUS, not BLFUN (boot licker for the UN). The rest of the world can burn, as long as the interests of the US are taken care of. 'War President'? Yes, that's typically what you call a president who leads a nation in a time of war, and we are in a time of war, whether you realize it or not. Also, I would like you to explain to me how Tibet defending itself from China would start WWIII, because I'm not seeing it. Let me run through the math here: China has nukes, Tibet doesn't. China has a strong military, Tibet doesn't. Neither have strong, or nuclear, nations that have promised to come to their aid, unless India has made such a pledge to Tibet, but I doubt it. Nope, it's not happening. The only way such an act would cause WWIII is if China was looking for an excuse to nuke someone, and if that were the case, they would find one anyway. Anyway, WC, for what it's worth, I'm sorry, I didn't expect this to happen. I'm glad you got tickets and I hope you enjoy the presentation. Until the next step of this little dance, I'm out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewGuy Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 The rest of the world can burn, as long as the interests of the US are taken care of. Only an american would say, even think like that. Ever wondered WHY you got so many enemies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfdude Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 haha no **** I can't believe he just said. I'm embarassed right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 *sighs* Whenever the day comes that people view what's best for the world as more important than what's best for their country, I'll be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 As a matter of fact, I'm darn glad we don't listen to the UN. YES. The UN is a joke. wolfman, you're alright in my book. Whenever the day comes that people view what's best for the world as more important than what's best for their country, I'll be happy. Whenever the day comes that whats best for the world and whats best for the US are the same thing, I'll be happy. In the meantime, as a US citizen, what's best for the US concerns me much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfdude Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 I hope none of you vote. edit: with ignorant views your probably don't vote, thanks in advance '08 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Oh, I still vote for what's best for the US. But I tend to believe that, in the long run, what's best for the US is what's best for the world. Not in every case, but in many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpnow Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Who gets to decide what is best for the world, guys? A president who told lie after lie to get us into a predicament far from comfortable? Who only fell back to making it about the Iraqi people once his own motives had fallen through? I believe in what is best for the world and it isn't them dying at the hand of ingorant, selfish people who are willing to use terrorism as a guise of a war against terror. Terrorism is the use of terror or fear to accomplish a political objective. The US, under the guidance of its President, used bombings and what is referred to a "shock and awe" campaign to use fear and terror to accomplish the objective of the spreading of a political agenda. The US commited terrorism...it dropped its otherwise worthy task of seeking out an enemy: Osama Bin Laden and turned, instead, to an place not our enemy, but who had something we wanted...and a war we could win. President Bush is not a wartime president, he's a president who enjoys wartime, there's a difference. He created the war we are in, it didn't fall into his lap. Saddam is not Osama. Iraq is not Afghanistan. The War in Iraq is not the War on Terror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Oh god, a sixteen year old trying to explain how the world works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfdude Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 It is true, the pretense with which we went into this war is completely false. We can fight a war on terror without occupying a whole country, or at least we could have before those whole fiasco. I hate republicans with a burning passion, and im just going to stay out of this thread from now on. **** off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpnow Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Self-Edit, I'm better than that. Argumentum ad hominem If you want to debate the point maturely, then fine, but personal attacks aren't debate. They're weakness and ignorance. Nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Debate? Debate what, exactly? You threw up a bunch of dumb remarks that you heard on TV or from your little high school friends in order to make yourself sound intelligent. President Bush is not a wartime president, he's a president who enjoys wartime, there's a difference. He created the war we are in, it didn't fall into his lap. Saddam is not Osama. Iraq is not Afghanistan. The War in Iraq is not the War on Terror. I don't even know where to begin with your post. The war is not about "Capturing Osama", its not about "finding weapons of mass destruction", and it sure as hell isn't about oil, or whatever other dumbass reason you got. This war is about fighting the radical Islamic ideology (To pre-emp any remarks about "we can't fight ideas with guns, we must fight ideas with ideas!" or some equivalent, well, thats just plain wrong. Look what we did to fascism). There is a whole section of people who want me dead for no other reason than that I am an American, and these people are not limited to a single country or nation. These people have been brainwashed into believing that I (and every other American citizen) am the spawn of evil, and should be eliminated at all costs. Osama was just a single man, and while he is definitely a priority, this war was never about capturing him. As far as the comment about a 'president who told lie after lie', what lies were there exactly? The whole 'weapons of mass destruction thing? Information existed that claimed Iraq had WOMDs. That made them a top target. If it wasn't Iraq, it would be another target. The war would still exist, and it would still exist because the reason we went to war would still exist regardless on some piece of information regarding Iraq. I'm not going to break down every other comment you made, but it really is nothing intelligent enough to waste time debating. How did this thread even turn to this again? P.S. to elfdude: not sure if your comment was directed at me, but I'm not a republican. I am most definitely not religious, and disagree with plenty that Bush has done. I consider myself Libertarian, and just happen to agree with Bush with regards to the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.