Would you prefer - US Civil War or US versus the world?

The ClubHouse: Big Brother 2000: General - Archives: Questions, questions and more questions: Would you prefer - US Civil War or US versus the world?
 SubtopicMsgs  Last Updated
Archive through September 23, 2000 25   09/23 03:41pm

Deni_San

Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 03:48 pm Click here to edit this post

Borish and rude? Curtis? I think not. He has never been borish and rude, but other houseguests yes.

He left that firm to help get criminals off the streets, and is taking a significant pay cut to work for the people.

Curtis never dissed Josh. Suspecting someone is gay is certainly not an insult, nor was it intended to be one.

Webtvlurker: It doesn't sound like your talking about Curtis, I think you might be talking about Eddie ;-)

Tishala

Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 03:57 pm Click here to edit this post

Deni_San,
Thank you! Your observation, "Suspecting someone is gay is certainly not an insult" is really correct. I might disagree with you about whether Curtis meant it as one, but the point is well taken, and probably necessary, still.

Again, thanks.

I'd rather see a civil war, personally. Do you think we could play a survival of the fittest between, say, the Jamie Lovers, the Eddie Lovers, and the 6 or so Josh Lovers? Meet on a field in Kansas with the accoutrements most associated with our respective heroes [lip gloss, laugh tracks, whoopie cushions, and "joshtrich" dolls] and have a duel till the....beginning of BB2?

Room_101

Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 04:03 pm Click here to edit this post

OK, I watched the so-called 'Great Debate' (see above) and in defense of Curtis..

1)Josh made absolute no sense!!

2)Josh WAS Sloshed last night... He kept on bring the topic up also.

3)Josh kept changing the argument in mid-sentence and he kept on narrowing the question, as Curtis explaining his reasoning.

4)Josh was trying desparately to bring Eddie and Jaime on his point of view... Curtis was on the defense mode.

IMHO: Josh, with his self-proclaimed High IQ, knows he's been trumped by Curtis in intellegence. Therefore, he was making a last ditch effort to make himself look smart.

Petunia

Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 04:11 pm Click here to edit this post

Room 101, do you remember what Josh's reasoning for going with the civil war was? I'd love to hear it.

Kirabira

Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 04:16 pm Click here to edit this post

josh first seemed to be saying that civil war would only involve our country.. less ppl involved = less death. Also i really think he mumbled while curtis was talking that 'why would the us be against the whole world'... whatever he said really made me think mmm good point.. its a little fishy if its the US against the whole world... like why would the whole world be after us?? In my mind i think that would mean we lowered ourselves to a new level of suckiness.. Josh seemed to be saying hed rather the war was confined to just our country.. which isnt very big at all if you can have a global perspective... if it was world war he was very concerned about nuclear weapons... He then focused his logic on his point being that he would rather have a civil war b/c ultimately that would mean less total deaths.

Deni_San

Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 04:23 pm Click here to edit this post

From what I saw, Curtis was merely musing on what Josh's secret was. He himself seems confortable with the fact people think he has some effeminate mannerisms. In fact, at the time, people were suspecting Curtis was also gay. Brittany later confirmed the neither was gay, so it was kind of a moot point. Curtis and Josh seem pretty comfortable with who they are to deal with the gender ambiguity.

Youre on! I will lead the amazon warriors for Curtis!

Room_101

Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 04:26 pm Click here to edit this post

Josh's reasoning:
He really didn't say any reasons at first. He wanted to argue against Curtis. However after all that was said and done.. after narrowing the question of nuclear or ground war only.. etc, etc
(really parapharing here)

He stated that if its a civil war, more people will be spared. The rest of the world will be ok.


BTW: Curtis countered that with what Gomer said above. After a US Civil War. The US will be so weak that another country will easily take us over. That's why he would take US vs World...

Kirabira

Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 04:28 pm Click here to edit this post

I think on that note ill add that i never liked josh much but this arguement made me think twice about him!! I think most people in the US become very arrogant in their pro US stance. This is a great country yes, but we tend to police the world just like jamie and curtis pointed out. For them they took pride in this. Me, I think it would be a better world if we were able to butt our pompus US nose out of other peoples business. I think many times we look before we leap.. ie vietnam.. I dont understand why people think the US would be so unbeatable in a WW... The Us could NEVER stand alone in a war against everyone and contrary to popular belief, it was not the US that won ww1 or 2!! Im sure Canada would love to tell you the part they played in the WW as well as other countries..

and now..
I cannot believe what Curtis said about Japan and the dropping of the bombs there. If eddie had said this i bet ppl would be all over him for some sort of racism. (for those of you that missed it Curtis used Japan as an example of how he reasoned the US could go up against anyone with threats of nukes)

Everyone is saying curtis is so educated, but i would never use the dropping of those bombs as an example of great us power. How many of you know about the controversy : Had Japan already surrendered BEFORE the bombs were dropped?

At any rate more examples of us policing the world come in the form of telling thrid world countries that they either get sterilized or we dont give them aid/food. etc

So yes id much rather have a civil war than a WW.
Besides nukes, I think its come to light that other countries have devloped weapons that are equally as scary... biological warfare..

Deni_San

Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 04:58 pm Click here to edit this post

This question is like asking which method of death do you want: Crucifiction or Stoning? It was merely an exercise in mental mastubation that forces people to defend the indefensible position.
World Wars suck and civil wars suck, now come up with arguments that support they are the best alternatives!

As a pacifist, I think all war is wrong, so I would reject both options. There are no winners in war.

Kirabira

Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 05:22 pm Click here to edit this post

right.. but the Q was: you have to pick one.. a civil war or a WW :)