0
   

WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 04:36 pm
I've thought that theologians don't use the word 'Jehowa' for God since 19th century.

When the Christian God really encourages prosperty, most religious orders aren't Christians at all.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 04:37 pm
Hobit -- That's a lovely piece from the Post.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 04:37 pm
Hobit wrote:
So why is the current administration pushing so hard for smaller "tactical" nuclear weapons, and working on integrating their use into evolving doctrine?


They suspect Saddams bunker is so deep it will take a nuke to smoke him----actually back on the farm, we used fill a rat hole with water----rats don't breath too well under water. Laughing
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 04:39 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I've thought that theologians don't use the word 'Jehowa' for God since 19th century.

I am loathe to refer to any of their ilk as "theologians!" Most refuse to learn Greek, and think Hebrew (a fairly recent tongue (post 3d century BCE)) is the "root of all languages." Rolling Eyes

Quote:
When the Christian God really encourages prosperty, most religious orders aren't Christians at all.

Their god might be named "Mammon." Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 04:42 pm
Tartarin wrote:
Hobit -- That's a lovely piece from the Post.


Damn ----you know Tart I'm actually getting jealous of Hobit ----you never say anything that nice about my sources.----why is that?????? Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 04:43 pm
perception wrote:
Hobit wrote:
So why is the current administration pushing so hard for smaller "tactical" nuclear weapons, and working on integrating their use into evolving doctrine?


They suspect Saddams bunker is so deep it will take a nuke to smoke him----actually back on the farm, we used fill a rat hole with water----rats don't breath too well under water. Laughing

A page back you stated that the need for nuclear weapons was strictly a cold war phenomenon. Which is it? Are they outmoded, or perfect for use against tactical targets? If their use is allowable, are they not then legitimate weapons for use against the US? Should we not encourage Pakistan and India to settle their differences by the use of nuclear weapons? Should not Iran and Israel nuke each other? Should not France and Germany attack the United States?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 04:44 pm
perception wrote:
Tartarin wrote:
Hobit -- That's a lovely piece from the Post.


Damn ----you know Tart I'm actually getting jealous of Hobit ----you never say anything that nice about my sources.----why is that?????? Laughing Laughing Laughing

Because I :
-Post links to sources.
- Don't edit out bits of the stories to change the message.
-Don't post from neo-Nazi websites. Any forther questions?
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 04:55 pm
Is your name spelled----T-A-R-T-A-R-I-N----I know you're a bit---funny---but really answering to a ladies name-----just wait your turn ------ I got plenty to go around.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 05:02 pm
perception wrote:
Is your name spelled----T-A-R-T-A-R-I-N----

A question mark is missing.
Quote:
I know you're a bit---funny---but really answering to a ladies name

Comma between "really" and "answering," please.

Quote:
-----just wait your turn ------ I got plenty to go around.

The prhase you were looking for is "have plenty to go around."
Actually, it is rather cold here, I would appreciate the hot air! Wink
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 05:14 pm
Naw---I like it the way I wrote it----you invested a lot time understanding and validating it Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 05:16 pm
Ahh, my little toesities are warming up already! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2003 05:35 pm
Oh-oh---the "thought" police are deleting posts again----I'm gone
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2003 11:34 pm
what post was deleted?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 07:57 pm
where has everyone gone from my favorite thread?......
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 08:04 pm
Percolated away, Lola.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 08:23 pm
exactly
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 09:19 pm
phooey
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 09:23 pm
I have been busy complying my data base of 150 million patriots that i need to kill. Keeps me busy but you know how us anarchists are, not really happy if we aren't busy.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 10:49 pm
Actually, this thread has been a disappointment for me, in the manner of so many political discussions here.

It doesn't seem to matter much whether the degree of scholarship is mediocre or sophisticated, or whether the reasoning is careful and extended, there is a class of ideas - those which are critical of this administration, or of US actions in the world - which are not open for discussion with many Americans. They aren't open for discussion because they couldn't possibly be true. The US can be exceptional only in the direction of the positive.

george, timber and some others won't agree with this assessment. But a survey of members here who reside elsewhere would not support them.

I find this increasingly intellectually frustrating. The three pieces which headed up this thread are each rich and deserving of careful attention. Any other such pieces I might link will, I think, be disregarded or passed off as anti-bush or anti-american - if the conclusion of them is a significant negative, then it must be that their contents are false, axiomatically.

In itself, this is a great curiosity. I've mentioned before that there is no comparable term, or idea, here to 'anti-americanism'. Where else might we find such a notion? Anti-Denmarkism? Anti-Britishism?

Even anti-Israeliism doesn't exist of itself as a notion for Israelis, not without the racial component of anti-semitism.

This is so peculiar, I think, because it isn't a notion one finds in other nations. One finds it within social or political movements. The notion of anti-Americanism really finds its comparison with terms like 'counter-revolutionary', or 'anti-catholicism', or 'anti-gay' or 'contra-feminism' or 'illiberalism'. That is, where a group considers that it represents an important, unique and progressive force which is embattled by the retrograde social context from which it has ascended.

It is no small irony that 'americanism' and 'marxism' are, in this important sense, mirror images. And it is no small frustration attempting to talk with proponents/members of either group.

Those of you who wish to may carry on here.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2003 11:26 pm
Lola

Glad you've decided to revive this thread because it was/is my favorite also. Let's go back and review parts of your last post----you said to me:

Lola wrote:
You are, perc, inclined to judge situations and people as black or white. You say so yourself. But I don't agree with you that this is an accurate picture of reality. It's a distortion of reality. In relationships with people, nothing is that simple or clear cut. We all have multiple motivations, and often our motivations conflict. So it takes some mature judgement about what is going on and what to do about it.


I admit to reducing factors as I see them down to the lowest common denominator-----the reason I tend to attempt this usually difficult feat is perhaps analogous to the reduction of masses of mathematical data to a simple equation. My final determination of either/or is only after Observing an event, Orienting myself to the observable factors surrounding that event, deciding what action is warranted and then acting as I see fit.
It much like the old survival tactic of fight or flight----it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that immediate action is required therefore if you analyse for a split second too long you're history.

It is my sincere belief that when action is required complex analysis must be performed with a profound sense of urgency however after all the KNOWN factors are analyzed the final decision might be taken based on whether it is----good --OR---evil. I will argue all day long that Bush made his final decision based on good --- or----evil---IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Now you and the left will say but it wasn't legal. Legal according to whose rules? That can be answered by saying that it was according to international law as established by the UN Charter---that is completely outmoded because it mistakenly allows thugs to thumb their nose at the international community because they have found a flaw in the International law. Then the next question is----do we have a moral obligation to break recognized international law in the case of Iraq? The answer is yes because the alternative is horrific. Now this becomes a moral issue not a legal issue. Bush decided morality was on our side because we must free the Iraqi people from a man who has murdered hundreds of thousands of his people and has turned the country into his personal toy to play with as he chooses. After this reasoning is established then the question is how do we justify this action to the American people? This is where the blunder developed but the end result would have been the same IMO. If----he had gone to the people (and the congress) and said : We must remove this man because he is a tyrant who has murdered X number of people, has imprisoned and tortured X number of people, we know he is supporting terrorism which is causing instability all over the ME(it was a fact that he was sending checks to the families of suicide bombers) and we think it is essential that we try to establish a gov't in Iraq that will represent all it's people. Had he laid out this simple set of reasons I think the American people would have supported him through congress and we would have still gone war.

He and his advisors did not trust the American people so they used reasons that had been accepted by the Clinton administration as being justifiable reasons which were supported by the best intelligence that was available at that time( we now suspect that intelligence was flawed) (HINDSIGHT IS ALWAYS 20/20)

Now many of you---not all ---will grudgingly acknowledge that ---THE DECISION TO RID THE WORLD OF SADDAM--was the right decision.

It is also obvious that serious miscalcutations about the aftermath of the war, were made by Wolfowitz et al because they did not listen to the right people. Should he be fired-----I would not ----- because----he did have the guts to go there and see the mess for himself and realizes he screwed up----he is human after all and he still knows more about the situation than almost anyone else AND he wants to correct the situation more profoundly than anyone else..

Now if you want to call my reasoning flawed and simplistic be my guest-----I would say I'm guilty only of breaking the complexities down to simple explanations.

You all say perception only sees things as either/or----black or white. That is true----but only after analysing all the known factors and the suspected consequences but in the final analysis you either do or you don't ----- go to war.

Blatham:

I have just seen your latest post before mashing the submit button----your posts are always challenging but if I may say just one thing. Instead of trying to find areas where we could agree(as I tried without success with Lola but I'm not giving up) you seem much more interested in intellectualizing instead of trying to find common ground. The final result could be categorized as an indictment against you but not nearly as bad as yours is against us.

Could I suggest that in each post each of us should at the end, ask a question which would be worded in such a way that would leave space for agreement----wouldn't that be a great achievement and something to aim for? As it is now we are talking past each other because of this thick wall of soundproof material separating us. I think we all have a great need to have a point acknowledged now and then??????????
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 11:46:35