Bananas???

[Zmajcek]

Originally posted by Mitteleuropeo
[BłBut you cannot compare Gonars with the Foibe: then you compare via Rastella with Fosse Ardeatine, Auschwitz with Dresden.
[/B]

I don't understand this point. I hope, you want say that Gonars was THE tragedy, like Dachau, Auschwitz and so on. Foibe were the consequence of the repression and violence by fascists.

[Mitteleuropeo]

Originally posted by Zmajček
I Foibe were the consequence of the repression and violence by fascists.

I fully agree, but the issue was that I could not tolerate a flag with the Red Star in its midst, since that was the flag of the people who misused the "foibe". As you will surely remember, in one of the posts above, I stressed that Iwould disagree in the same way with the public exibition of a flag with the "fascio" in its midst.
Now, matteomatteo has stated that he was not aware of the particular meaning that this flag had in our area, but he thought that it was only the flag of Brigata Garibaldi, which does not deserve any exclusion or expression of harassment.

Preaching words of wisdom, let it be!

[Mr]

[Zefram_Cochrane]

Hi Christine! I hope you'll enjoy this forum!
anyway, i've read you voted for Bush
Can i ask you the reason of this choice?


ps: forgive me if my english is horrible

[Christine]

Originally posted by thematrix
Hi Christine! I hope you'll enjoy this forum!
anyway, i've read you voted for Bush
Can i ask you the reason of this choice?


ps: forgive me if my english is horrible

Hi!

I voted for Bush because I agree with his ideology. I'm conservative, so I see you and I are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

You don't have to apologize for your English. This is an Italian forum, so I should be the one apologizing for my Italian (or lack of it.) Maybe eventually I'll be able to carry on conversations in Italian and have people actually understand me.

[Mitteleuropeo]

Originally posted by Christine

I voted for Bush because I agree with his ideology.

* It is interesting to read the word "ideology", when Bush is referred to. Since it is used by a native speaker, any misuse of the term is impossible.

In my opinion, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Colbert, Gandhi, Crispi, Bismarck... had ideas or political programs based on them.

Napoleon, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Mussilini, Hitler... had ideologies.

Churchill was something "in between"

[Christine]

Originally posted by Mitteleuropeo
* It is interesting to read the word "ideology", when Bush is referred to. Since it is used by a native speaker, any misuse of the term is impossible.

In my opinion, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Colbert, Gandhi, Crispi, Bismarck... had ideas or political programs based on them.

Napoleon, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Mussilini, Hitler... had ideologies.

Churchill was something "in between"

I'm not sure what you mean by your post. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an ideology is "1 : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
2 : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture ."

In my opinion, every person has an ideology. Well, let me clarify that: Every thinking person has an ideology.

[Zefram_Cochrane]

Originally posted by Christine
Hi!

I voted for Bush because I agree with his ideology. I'm conservative, so I see you and I are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

You don't have to apologize for your English. This is an Italian forum, so I should be the one apologizing for my Italian (or lack of it.) Maybe eventually I'll be able to carry on conversations in Italian and have people actually understand me.

dont worry for your italian, i think that with a little bit of experience you will speak italian perfectly

[Christine]

Originally posted by thematrix
dont worry for your italian, i think that with a little bit of experience you will speak italian perfectly

Thanks! Unfortunately, I can't practice with anyone since I don't know anyone who speaks Italian, so I guess everyone here will get stuck with me. So far I just spend most of my time reading the posts. Little by little...

[Mitteleuropeo]

Originally posted by Christine
an ideology is "1 : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture

* I am scared when I read the word "systematic". According to me, it means a CLOSE system, not allowing extensions or deviations. A good exemple of it is Kant's philosophy, as well as Aristotile's: both of them depicted their personal view of the world, irrespective of the sense other people would add to their original construction of thoughts. It sounds, as if they would have likedt o esablish a COMPLETE and comprehensive system to human thinking. If you follow what happened after them, you will soon realize that Aristotiles was the milestone of the Catholic faith and prevented it to be changed by people like Copernicus and Galilei, who derived their understanding from scientific evidence. Surely, you remember that Galilei was close to be put to jail for having suggested that the Earth rotated around the Sun and not vice-versa, as Aristotiles believed. On the other side, Kant, with his absolute imperative, admitted that everybody had the right of regarding his personal beliefs as absolute truths, thus denying the existence of common Laws. The consequences of the dogmatization of his "ideology" was Nietzsche, who regarded the superior Human as somebody who had the right of overcoming all rules accepted by the Human Society. The next consequences were the dictatorships of Hitler and Stalin, who thought that they were superior Beings and therefore entitled to act following only their own beliefs, let us call them IDEOLOGIES.
Hope you have got the link to Mr. Bush.
__________________________________

In my opinion, every person has an ideology. Well, let me clarify that: Every thinking person has an ideology.

* In my opinion, every thinking person has an idea, but he/she should be open also to other ones, let alone to moderate changes.I feel that Mr. Bush is ages far away from that, since he regards his dogma of the superiority of the market economy and of the right of the US to impose their views to other Countries as an obvious consequence of the military superiority of the USA.
The US have achieved their overhelming power mainly through the fact of being practically immune from foreign attacks and of being competitive in the markets due to the economy of scale, made possible by a large homogeneous market. Think of the defeat in Vietnam, of the poor results in bringing peace into Irak, of the huge debts of US-households...
I guess, you will seriously rethink about the advantages of running after an ideology, let alone to export it to Countries having a different history (which leads to a different ranking of values). Mr. Adam Smith had also an ideology, as well as Mr. Keynes. According to me, the one of Mr. Smith has proven to be short-sighted, whereas the one by Mr. Keynes has never proved to be wrong, especially because it is not really an ideology, but a way of thinking (and acting), thus being open to suggestions and changes, as experience may require.

I am seriously interested in hearing the comments from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean!

Have a good time!