Obama '08?

The analogy is a failed one from the standpoint that one would use an analogy as a literary tool to clarify one's point to a person's audience.....Cyclops analogy certainly did not clarify his point to this audience, and as the last 3 pages show, further clouded it.

maporsche wrote:

The analogy is a failed one from the standpoint that one would use an analogy as a literary tool to clarify one's point to a person's audience.....Cyclops analogy certainly did not clarify his point to this audience, and as the last 3 pages show, further clouded it.

Your inability to keep up is not indicative of the validity of the analogy.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:

The analogy is a failed one from the standpoint that one would use an analogy as a literary tool to clarify one's point to a person's audience.....Cyclops analogy certainly did not clarify his point to this audience, and as the last 3 pages show, further clouded it.

Your inability to keep up is not indicative of the validity of the analogy.

Cycloptichorn

In this instance it is. Maporche is hardly dopiest participant of this thread, nor the only one that finds your metaphor lacking. Let it go.

Diest TKO wrote:

okie wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Okie - PLEASE indulge us on how you think the problem is solved. Be specific please. Remember that you can't use bureaucracy at all.

That would be "negotiating."
K
O

First of all, there will always be problems, and you will never eliminate all of them. I am not one to believe utopia is possible or likely on earth. But simply because I believe there will always be problems, I don't advocate simply rolling over and giving in. So, resist evil with all the ability that you have, and stand for good, and if it requires military action, so be it. Negotiate where reasonable and where there is an element of good faith, but don't negotiate with the unreasonable.

Next question?

Wow. So you're idea of solving problems with nations like Iran is to press the war button rapidly while assaulting the enemy with a barrage of meaningless hyperbole about good and evil?

I never said that.

Quote:

I asked for specifics, and said nothing about creating a utopia.

I merely pointed out that all problems will never be solved permanently, which I think is very pertinent to your question. I don't think reality fits the idealistic world that is visualized by the left.

Quote:

You make mention of negotiating but don't offer us any definition of what is "reasonable" or "unreasonable."

That would take a library, Diest, and I think that is what the State Department, Department of Defense, Secretary of State, including the thousands of employees, get paid to do, to evaluate all of this stuff, and it is far from a perfect science. We cannot re-create the people that we have to deal with, so we take what is given us and make the best of it.

Quote:

I see having a dialog with countries like Iran and Cuba as being reasonable. It doesn't mean that they get their way, but it means that we are using our political scientists and not our military scientists to wage war with conflicting ideas/world-views/interests.

T
K
O

I do not view the leader of Iran as being a straight shooter. He will only use dialog to further his own aims. Any dialog that is carried on will not be in good faith. Our government sees it in the same way at the present time. Sometimes it pays to talk, and sometimes it doesn't, and history has proven it.

There are very few black/white positions in reality. Only over-simplified positions, posited to be so, when in fact the shades of gray exist.Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There are very few black/white positions in reality. Only over-simplified positions, posited to be so, when in fact the shades of gray exist.Cycloptichorn

I am going to take you serious, cyclops, you have never disagreed with me totally, and in fact you always agree somewhat with me and other conservatives. You could have fooled me after all of the stuff you've posted, until finally you have now made it clear, well sort of, that nothing is ever completely right, or completely wrong, including most of your opinions, but not all of them of course, that would be impossible in an analog world.

But I am sure the above is not entirely right or wrong either. This is becoming confusing, cyclops.

Cyclo - I get the analogy. I would however abandon it. In this case having a complex analogy only serves to help our conservative friends here account for their ideas.

.......If a budget is proposed on the floor of the senate or congress, the body may choose to approve or deny it. That's black and white. The truth is that most likely, they will instead approve a number they feel appropriate; something between $0.00 and whatever was requested. A grey amount.

maporsche wrote:

The analogy is a failed one from the standpoint that one would use an analogy as a literary tool to clarify one's point to a person's audience.....Cyclops analogy certainly did not clarify his point to this audience, and as the last 3 pages show, further clouded it.

Your inability to keep up is not indicative of the validity of the analogy.

Cycloptichorn

so north korea is just dipping our pigtails in the inkwell?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:

The analogy is a failed one from the standpoint that one would use an analogy as a literary tool to clarify one's point to a person's audience.....Cyclops analogy certainly did not clarify his point to this audience, and as the last 3 pages show, further clouded it.

Your inability to keep up is not indicative of the validity of the analogy.

Cycloptichorn

It is indicative on the success of your analogy. Why would you use an analogy unless you thought it would help illustrate your point.

Your analogy may indeed be valid, but it was NOT successful as a literary tool to clarify your point or meaning.

I haven't (yet) argued if your analogy is VALID or not, just whether it achieved its intended purpose (as I see it).

Diest TKO wrote:

Cyclo - I get the analogy. I would however abandon it. In this case having a complex analogy only serves to help our conservative friends here account for their ideas.

.......If a budget is proposed on the floor of the senate or congress, the body may choose to approve or deny it. That's black and white. The truth is that most likely, they will instead approve a number they feel appropriate; something between $0.00 and whatever was requested. A grey amount.

No offense, Deist, but if you want to get your Bachelor's Degree (in aeronautical engineering, you claimed at one point) you have to drop this (wrong) approach to fuzzy logic and actually study for your final exams.

If you dropped out of college, never mind!

maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:

The analogy is a failed one from the standpoint that one would use an analogy as a literary tool to clarify one's point to a person's audience.....Cyclops analogy certainly did not clarify his point to this audience, and as the last 3 pages show, further clouded it.

Your inability to keep up is not indicative of the validity of the analogy.

Cycloptichorn

It is indicative on the success of your analogy. Why would you use an analogy unless you thought it would help illustrate your point.

Your analogy may indeed be valid, but it was NOT successful as a literary tool to clarify your point or meaning.

I haven't (yet) argued if your analogy is VALID or not, just whether it achieved its intended purpose (as I see it).

The success of an analogy is not dependent upon the intelligence of the person who hears it, but instead on the validity of the issue and how it corresponds to the original issue.

It isn't as if I am the originator of the analog vs. digital analogy. It's a commonly used phrase. Amazing to me that anyone could be unaware of this.

Cycloptichorn

As fascinating as this dispute seems to be and all of these others issues being discussed, I can't find out how the wind seems to be blowing in either IN or NC for Obama. Has anyone any information?

It has been fairly well established here that the analogue-digital metaphor is at best useless and at worst positively distracting. Let's leave it at that.

I believe the Bush Administrations refusal to meet or dialogue in any way with Hamas is entirely indefensible. It is merely an artifact of the power of the Israeli lobby here to lead us around by the nose. Their motive of course is to enable Israel to sustain the delusion that they can continue to pretend the Palestinians have no rights and that their policy of "Land for Peace" is something more than the scam that it truly is.

In the case of Iran the situation is different. We know there are serious divisions within the Iranian society, basically involving the interface between Islam and the modern world, and, attendant to that, some serious economic problems as well. The present government represents one side of this dispute, and any dialogue with them must be evaluated with all this in mind. Some types of dialogue with the government may merely empower them in their internal struggle, or merely enable them to play games and take postures, favorable to themselves, on the international stage. It is generally wise to avoid either kind of public dialogue.
That however, doesn't mean that we should avoid all contacts with them: on the contrary we should stay close to understand as well as possible just what are their perceptions and where any mutually beneficial ground may be found; and, as well, to simply "know our enemies". Our real interest is to see the forces of modernism prevail in Iranian society and to work with them for our mutual interests. The fact is that we have many contacts with Iran and its present government that enable us to do most of this. Whether or not this is enough or an optimal position in this matter is something that we can argue.
However, the proposition that we should unilaterally recognize the government that unlawfully seized and imprisoned hundreds of people from our former embassy for several years, and which is led by an individual who was part of that seizure, is frankly, laughable.

North Korea is yet another matter. Our dialogue with them and their neighbors has been very productive in the last several years. China has been indirectly forced to deal with the misbehavior of her client state and neighbor; South Korea has emerged from a period of delusion in which they thought they could buy off a lunatic regime just miles from their capitol; Japan has been forced to publicly consider its own security interests vis a vis Korea; and the United States has, at very low cost, entangled North Korea in an unfavorable (to them) complex of relationships with all of its neighbors along with us. Moreover each of these individual developments has positively influenced the others - example: increased Japanese security concerns stimulate beneficial (to us) reactions on the part of China and South Korea.
Overall our handling of this situation over the past seven years has been extremely successful -- and we haven't even had to promise to build them a free nuclear reactor or send Madeline Allbright over to Poynyang to kiss Kim's ass.

The basic point here is that there is no simple, universal answer to the question of whether we should engage in public dialogue or negotiations with an unfriendly government, and that anyone on either side of the political debate who advocates such a simple answer is talking out of a non-standard orifice.